Bava Batra 127a — the Talmud in English

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

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

For example: there were three brothers, a firstborn, a non-firstborn, and a tumtum. And there were nine maneh in their father’s estate. They first divide the estate into three parts, as though there were no tumtum here, and the firstborn takes two parts, which are six maneh: three on account of his firstborn status, and three for his share as a non-firstborn; and the non-firstborn takes one part, three maneh. It follows that the firstborn’s share is three maneh, and the shares of the non-firstborns are six maneh.

And they return and divide the shares of the non-firstborns equally among the three of them, and each takes two maneh.

And thus the firstborn’s share was not diminished on account of the tumtum.

As it is stated, “And she bears him sons

and the son who is the firstborn”,

until there is a son at the time of birth.

That is to say, whoever was a son at the time of birth—the firstborn takes opposite him a firstborn’s share, that is, a larger share. Therefore, the tumtum is not considered together with them when they come to divide the estate and give the firstborn’s share.

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

That is to say, its circumcision on the eighth day does not override Shabbat, like other circumcisions.

For the verse says: “When a woman conceives and bears a male, and on the eighth day he shall be circumcised.” Until there is a male from the time of birth.

Rav Sherevya said: His mother is also not impure

with the impurity of

childbirth.

For example, if his mother gave birth to him and did not see blood at her childbirth [for if she saw blood, she is impure like a menstruant], she is not impure as a woman who has given birth, for one week for a male or two weeks for a female.

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

And the Gemara objects:

It was objected:

Did we not learn in tractate Niddah:

“If she miscarries a tumtum or an androgynos, she shall sit [in a state of impurity] for a male and for a female .”

”?

And it is explicitly clarified that the impurity of childbirth applies to her?

The refutation of Rav Sherevya is a refutation.

And the Gemara objects:

Shall we say that there should also be

also

a refutation of Rav Shizevi,

who said, “It is also not circumcised on the eighth day,” and expounded it from the verse concerning the impurity of childbirth, whereas in the aforementioned Mishna it is clear that we do not expound from that verse to exclude a tumtum?

And the Gemara answers:

The tanna is uncertain

whether to expound in accordance with the words of Rav Shizevi or not,

and

therefore he adopts

the stringent position.

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

And the Gemara objects:

If so,

why did we learn,

“She shall sit for a male and for a female,”

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

and

we did not take into consideration

the

impurity of

a menstruant,

to render her impure for every blood that she sees,

whereas according to Rav Shizevi’s exposition

it is necessary for her

to be concerned also for the impurity of a menstruant, since pure days as a woman who has given birth do not apply to her?

And we conclude:

It is difficult.

Rava said: It was taught in accordance with the view 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.” It is stated in the Torah, “And he shall be the firstborn son ... to give him a double portion.” And we expound in a beraita:

“Son”

takes a double portion,

and not a tumtum. “Firstborn,” and not one of doubtful status.

And we inquire about it:

Granted,

your exposition of

“a son and not

a tumtum,”

comes to teach us the

law

of

Rav Ami; but “a firstborn and not one of doubtful status”—what does it exclude?

It excludes that which Rava expounded.

For Rava expounded: Two women

of one man,

who gave birth to two males in hiding,

and we do not know which one is the firstborn,

write authorization documents for one another.

And one of them comes and claims a firstborn’s share from the brothers, saying, “If I am the firstborn, give it to me for myself, and if not, give it to me for my brother”.

And for this matter the exposition “a firstborn and not one of doubtful status” was useful, to teach us that it is a decree of Scripture that they should not take a firstborn’s share on the basis of doubt.

Rav Pappa said to Rava

when he expounded his ruling:

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

Yannai: They were recognized

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

and in the end they became intermingled, they write authorization documents for one another.”

But if

they were not recognized

from the time of their birth

, they do not write authorization documents for one another,

as we expound, “a firstborn and not one of doubtful status”?

Rava then appointed a public announcer over him and expounded

([Rava retracted his words and appointed an announcer before him, who would repeat his words aloud, and he expounded publicly):

“The things that 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 in the end became intermingled, they write authorization documents for one another; if they were not recognized, they do not write authorization documents for one another.”

And such is the halakha.

The sons of Akra de-Agma sent to Shmuel: “Let our master teach us: They were established as this one being the firstborn

without witnesses, but merely through a report.

And his father said concerning another

([one of the brothers] that

he is the firstborn; what is [the law]?”

Is the father credible in a place where there is an established presumption?