Bava Batra 126b (קכו:) — the Talmud in English

Some say [Rav Pappi]:

Rav Pappi]:

He accomplished nothing with regard to half.

That is, with regard to the share of the ordinary firstborn. But he has the authority to sell the firstborn’s share, since he possesses it before the division.

And some say [Rav Pappa]: He accomplished nothing

Rav Pappa]: he accomplished nothing

with regard to all of them.

Since the firstborn possesses nothing before the division, he cannot sell even his firstborn’s share.

They sent word from there

[from Eretz Yisrael]:

A firstborn who sold

his firstborn’s

share before the division accomplished nothing.

Apparently,

they hold that

the firstborn possesses nothing before the division.

And the halakha is: The firstborn possesses his share before the division.

And if he sold, relinquished, or took one share as an ordinary son, he relinquished his rights with regard to all the property. For upon the father’s death he acquired all the property and can transfer it as he wishes.

Mar Zutra of Darishba

[the name of a place] was a firstborn, and

he divided a basket of peppers

[a basket full of peppers]

equally with the brothers

and did not demand his firstborn’s share from them.

He came before Rav Ashi, who said to him: Since you relinquished your rights with regard to part of it, you relinquished your rights with regard to all the property.

As stated above.

Mishna:

One who says

to his sons before his death:

“So-and-so, my son,”

even though he is

the firstborn, shall not take a double portion

of my property; or:

“So-and-so, my son, shall not inherit along with his brothers”—he has said nothing.

Because he

stipulated contrary to that which is written in the Torah.

.

That is, he has no power to say that the son shall not inherit, because the Torah decreed that he shall inherit.

If the father wished that one of his sons should not inherit, he must give his property as a gift to the other brothers.

Therefore,

one who distributes his property on the basis of his word,

for example, through the gift of one who is mortally ill, which does not require an act of acquisition, and

increases the share of one, decreases the share of another,

or

equalizes the firstborn with them, his words stand.

But if he said

at the time he distributed the property that his intention was

as an inheritance, he has said nothing.

For he stipulated contrary to that which is written in the Torah, as stated above.

But if he used the language of inheritance, and also

wrote, whether at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end, that it was as a gift, his words stand.

Gemara:

It is explained in the Mishna that one cannot stipulate contrary to that which is written in the Torah even with regard to matters involving money.

And the Gemara asks:

Shall we say that the Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda?

For if it is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, he said:

One who stipulates contrary to that which is written in the Torah

with regard to a monetary matter, his stipulation stands.

As it is taught in a beraita: One who says to a woman, “You are betrothed to me on the condition that you have no claim upon me for sustenance, clothing, or marital relations”—she is betrothed and his stipulation is void. These are the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to a monetary matter

his stipulation stands .

.

And the Gemara answers:

Even if you say that it is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, there

the woman

knew

of the stipulation before the marriage,

and she relinquished her rights,

and therefore his words stand. But

here, she did not relinquish her rights. It is stated in the Torah: “For he must recognize the firstborn son of the hated one,” and from here we learn that the father is trusted to recognize his firstborn son and to say, “This is my firstborn son.”

. It is stated in the Torah: “For he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the hated one,” and from here we learn that the father is trustworthy to acknowledge his firstborn son and to say, “This is my firstborn son.”

It will be explained below that Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disputed this law. According to Rabbi Yehuda, he is trusted to say, “This is my firstborn son,” even if we had established that he is not the firstborn.

According to the Rabbis, he is trusted to say, “This is my firstborn son” only where we had established nothing. But against an established presumption, he is not trusted.

The Gemara before us discusses the cases in which the father’s intention is to recognize his son as the firstborn. It concerns a case in which we had not established that he was not the firstborn, and it accords with everyone’s opinion.

Rav Yosef said: If he said, “So-and-so, my son, is my firstborn,” the son takes a double portion .

.

But if he said:

“So-and-so is a firstborn,” he does not take a double portion.

What is the reason?

Perhaps he was referring to the mother’s firstborn.

There was a certain man who came before Rabba bar bar Ḥana and said to him: “I am certain with regard to this one that he is a firstborn.”

He said to him: “From where do you know?”

He said to him:

“For his father used to call him ‘foolish firstborn’”

[a foolish firstborn].

He said to him:

“Perhaps he is the mother’s firstborn, for every mother’s firstborn is also called ‘foolish firstborn.’”

.

There was a certain man who came before Rabbi Ḥanina and said to him: “I am certain with regard to this one that he is a firstborn.”

He said to him: “From where do you know?”

He said to him: “When those who suffered from eye ailments would come

to

his father

in order that he heal them,

he would say to them, ‘Go to Shakhat, my son,’

[my son named Shakhat]

‘for he is a firstborn, and his saliva heals.’”

[He will spit into your eye and you will be healed.]

And the Gemara asks: How do we know that the father’s intention was to say that he was his firstborn son,

and perhaps he was the mother’s firstborn?

The Gemara answers:

We have learned by tradition

[we have learned, meaning, this is the established ruling]:

A father’s firstborn heals with his saliva; a mother’s firstborn does not heal with his saliva.

Rav Ami said: A tumtum whose covering was torn open and who was found to be male does not take a double portion.

For the verse states: “And the firstborn son shall be hers,” meaning, he must be a son from the moment of conception.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: He is also not judged as a wayward and rebellious son.

For the verse states: “If a man has a son who is wayward and rebellious,” meaning, he must be a son from the moment of conception.