Rabbah said: [The law] of R. Assi stands to reason in [the case] where grapes were cut5 [or] where olives were plucked;6 but where these were pressed7 [the firstborn does] not [receive a double portion].8 But R. Joseph said: Even if they were pressed. 'If,' [you said], 'they were pressed', [surely] at first [they were] grapes; now [they turned into] wine!9 — As R. 'Ukba b. Hama said [elsewhere]. 'Compensation is to be paid to him for any damaged grapes',10 [so] here, also, compensation is paid to him for any damaged grapes.11
In what connection12 was [the statement] of R. 'Ukba b. Mama made?13 [In connection] with what Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: Where a father bequeathed to a firstborn, and to an ordinary son grapes which they cut14 [or] olives which they plucked, the firstborn receives a double portion even if they pressed [the grapes]. '[If] they pressed [the grapes]', it was asked, '[were these not] first grapes [and] now [they are turned into] wine?'15 [To this] R. 'Ukba b. Mama replied. 'Compensation is paid to him for any damaged grapes.'11
R. Assi said: If a firstborn son accepted a share [of a field]16 equal [to that of] any other [brother], he has renounced [the claims of his birthright]. What [is meant by] 'renounced'? — R. Papa said in the name of Raba: He renounced his claim upon that field only.17 R. Papi in the name of Raba said: He renounced [thereby] his claims upon the entire estate. R. Papa had said in the name of Raba [that] he renounced his claim upon that field only, [for] he is of the opinion [that] the firstborn is not regarded as legal possessor of [his share] before the division [between the heirs takes place];18 and R. Papi had said in the name of Raba that he renounced. [thereby]. his claim upon the entire estate, [because] he is of the opinion [that] the firstborn is considered [legal] possessor of [his share] before the division takes place, and [it is assumed that], since he has renounced his claim over that [one field] he has [also] renounced his claim upon all the others.
And the [statements reported by] R. Papi and R. Papa [in the name of Raba] were not made19 explicitly [by him], but inferred [by them]. For there was a certain firstborn son who went [and] sold his own property20 and [that] of his other [brother].21 [When] the orphans, the sons of the other [brother], went to eat [of] the dates of the buyers, the latter beat them. 'Is it not enough', said the [orphans'] relatives to them, 'that you bought up their property, but you must also beat them?' They came before Raba, [and] he said to them: 'The sale is invalid'.22
Baba Bathra 126b
[One] master1 holds the opinion [that Raba's meaning was that the sale] of a part2 [only of the estate was] invalid, and the [other] Master3 holds the opinion [that Raba's meaning was that] the entire [sale was invalid].4
[A message] was sent from Palestine:5 [If] a firstborn son had sold [his share] before the division [of the estate took place, that sale] is invalid.6 This shows that the firstborn is not regarded as the [legal] possessor of his share7 before distribution [had taken place]. And the law is that the firstborn is the possessor of his share8 [even] before distribution [of the estate had taken place].
Mar Zutra of Darishba divided a basket9 of pepper with [his] brothers in equal [shares].10 [When] he came before R. Ashi, [the latter] said to him: 'Since you have renounced [your rights in] a part [of the estate]11 you have [implicitly] renounced [them] in all of it'.12
MISHNAH. [IF] ANY ONE SAID,13 'MY FIRSTBORN SON, SHALL NOT RECEIVE A DOUBLE PORTION,' [OR] 'X, MY SON, SHALL NOT BE HEIR WITH HIS BROTHERS', HIS INSTRUCTIONS ARE DISREGARDED,14 BECAUSE HE MADE A STIPULATION [WHICH IS] CONTRARY TO WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE TORAH.15 IF ONE16 DISTRIBUTED HIS PROPERTY VERBALLY, [AND] GAVE TO ONE [SON] MORE, AND TO [ANOTHER] ONE LESS, OR [IF] HE ASSIGNED TO THE FIRST BORN A SHARE EQUAL TO THAT OF HIS BROTHERS,17 HIS ARRANGEMENTS ARE VALID.18 IF, [HOWEVER], HE SAID, AS AN INHERITANCE',19 HIS INSTRUCTIONS ARE DISREGARDED.20 [IF] HE WROTE,21 EITHER AT THE BEGINNING OR THE MIDDLE OR THE END, 'AS A GIFT',22 HIS INSTRUCTIONS ARE VALID.23
GEMARA. [Must] it be said [that] our Mishnah24 is not in accordance with R. Judah? For, if [it be suggested that it is in accordance with] R. Judah. surely he said, [it may be asked]. [that] in money matters one's stipulation is valid'.25 For it was taught: If a man said to a woman, 'Behold thou art consecrated unto me26 on condition that thou shalt have no [claim] upon me [for] food, raiment and conjugal rights' she is consecrated27 but the stipulation is null;28 these are the words of R. Meir. R. Judah said: In respect of the money matters his stipulation is valid!29 [Our Mishnah] may be said [to be in agreement] even [with the view of] R. Judah; [only] there,30 she knew [his conditions] and renounced her privilege31 [but] here,32 [the son] did not renounce [his privileges].33
R. Joseph said: [If] one said, 'X is my firstborn son', [the latter] is to receive a double portion.34 [But if he said]. 'X is a firstborn' [the latter] is not to receive a double portion, for he may have meant,' the firstborn son of his mother'.35
A certain [person once] came before Rabbah b. Bar Hana [and] said to him, 'I am certain that this [man] is a firstborn'. He said to him: 'Whence do you know [this]?' 'Because his father called him foolish36 firstborn' 'He might have been the firstborn of his mother [only], because the firstborn of a mother is also called foolish firstborn.'37
A certain [person once] came before R. Hanina [and] said to him, 'I am certain that this [man] is firstborn'. He said to him, 'Whence do you know [this]?' — [The other] replied to him: 'Because when [people] came to his father,38 he used to say to them: Go to my son Shikhath, Who is firstborn and his spittle heals'. — Might he not have been the firstborn of his mother [only]? — There is a tradition that the spittle of the firstborn of a father is healing, but that of the firstborn of a mother is not healing.
R. Ammi said: A tumtum39 [firstborn] who, having been operated upon40 was found to be a male, does not receive a double portion [as heir], for Scripture says. And if the firstborn son be hers that was hated,41 [which implies that he cannot be regarded as firstborn] unless42 he was a son at the beginning43 of [his] being.44 R. Nahman b. Isaac said: Neither is he tried as a 'stubborn and rebellious son';45 for Scripture says, If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son,46 [which implies that] he must have been47 a son at the beginning48 of[his] being.49
- To Next Folio -