Bava Batra 127a (קכז.) — the Talmud in English

Ameimar said: It also does not diminish the firstborn's share.

That is, if that tumtum who was found to be male is not the firstborn, he does not diminish the firstborn's share.

For example: there were three brothers , a firstborn, an ordinary son, and a tumtum. Their father's estate consisted of nine manim. They first divide the estate into three parts, as though there were no tumtum here. The firstborn takes two parts, which are six manim: three on account of his firstborn status and three as his ordinary share; and the ordinary son takes one part, three manim. It follows that the firstborn's share is three manim, and the ordinary shares are six manim.

They then divide the ordinary shares equally among the three, and each one takes two manim.

Thus, the firstborn's share was not diminished on account of the tumtum.

As it is stated: “And she bears him sons

and the firstborn son shall be his,”

until he is a son at the time of birth.

That is, when there was a son at the time of birth, the firstborn takes a firstborn's share corresponding to him, namely, a larger share. Therefore, the tumtum is not considered with them when they come to divide the estate and allocate the firstborn's share.

Rav Shizevi said: It is also not circumcised on the eighth day.

That is, his circumcision on the eighth day does not override Shabbat, unlike other circumcisions

. For the verse says: “When a woman conceives and gives birth to a male, and on the eighth day he shall be circumcised”—until he is male from the time of birth.

Rav Shervaya said: His mother is also not rendered impure

with the impurity

of childbirth.

For example, if his mother gave birth to him but did not see blood during the birth—for if she saw blood, she would be impure as a menstruant—she is not impure as a woman who has given birth, whether for one week in the case of a male or for two weeks in the case of a female.

For the verse says: “When a woman conceives and gives birth to a male, and she shall be impure for seven days”—until he is male from the time of birth.

The Gemara raises an objection:

It raises an objection:

Did we not learn in tractate Niddah:

“If a woman miscarries a tumtum or an androgynos, she observes the period prescribed for a male and for a female”

”?

? It is explicitly evident that the impurity of childbirth applies to her.

The objection against Rav Shervaya is indeed an objection.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Shall we say that there is

also

an objection against Rav Shizevi,

who said, “He is also not circumcised on the eighth day,” and derived this from the verse concerning the impurity after childbirth, whereas the aforementioned Mishna indicates that we do not derive from that verse that a tumtum is excluded?

The Gemara answers:

The tanna was uncertain

whether to expound the verse in accordance with Rav Shizevi's statement or not,

and

therefore he chose

the stringent approach.

With regard to impurity, she must be stringent as both a male and a female , and with regard to Shabbat, his circumcision does not override Shabbat.

The Gemara raises an objection:

If so,

why did we learn

“she observes the period prescribed for a male and for a female,”

which implies that in any event she has pure days as one who gave birth to a male,

and

we did not take into account

the

impurity of

a menstruant,

to render her impure for every blood she sees?

But according to Rav Shizevi's exposition,

it should be necessary

to take into account even the impurity of a menstruant, since the pure days of a woman who has given birth do not apply to her.

And we conclude:

This is difficult .

Rava said: It was taught in a beraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ami

, who said above, “A tumtum whose covering was torn and who was found to be male does not take a double portion.” The Torah states: “And he shall recognize the firstborn ... to give him a double portion.” And we expound in a beraita:

“Son”

takes a double portion

, but not a tumtum. “Firstborn,” but not one of uncertain status.

We analyze this:

Granted,

the exposition

“a son, but not

a tumtum,”

comes to teach us

the

statement

of Rav Ami; but “a firstborn, but not one of uncertain status”—what does this exclude?

It excludes the opinion taught by Rava.

For Rava taught: Two wives

of one man

gave birth to two males in hiding,

and we do not know which one is the firstborn,

they may write authorization documents to one another.

One of them comes and claims a firstborn's share from the brothers, saying: “If I am the firstborn, give it to me on my own behalf; and if not, give it to me on behalf of my brother”

. With regard to this matter, the exposition “a firstborn, but not one of uncertain status” was useful in teaching us that it is a decree of the verse that they may not take a firstborn's share when the matter is uncertain.

Rav Pappa said to Rava

when he expounded his ruling:

But Ravin sent word: “I asked all my teachers about this matter, and they did not tell me anything. However, this is what they said in the name of Rabbi

Yannai: ‘If they were recognized

as the sons when they were born, and it became known which was the firstborn,

but ultimately they became intermingled, they may write authorization documents to one another.’”

But if

they were not recognized

from the time of their birth

, they may not write authorization documents to one another,

as we expound: “A firstborn, but not one of uncertain status”?

Rava then appointed a public speaker over himself and expounded

[he retracted his statement and appointed a herald before him to repeat his words aloud, and he expounded publicly]:

“The things I told you were an error on my part. However, this is what they said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: ‘If they were recognized and ultimately became intermingled, they may write authorization documents to one another; if they were not recognized, they may not write authorization documents to one another.’”

And this is the halakha.

The sons of the village of the marsh sent to Shmuel: “Let our master teach us: If it was established that this one was the firstborn

not through witnesses, but merely through common report

, and his father said of another

[one of the brothers ]

that he is the firstborn, what is the law?

Is the father believed in opposition to the established presumption?