## Bava Batra Daf 124a

###### Bava Batra 124a:1
[Bava Batra 124a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/124a:1)

אַף מוּחְכֶּרֶת וּמוּשְׂכֶּרֶת – שְׁבָחָא דְּמִמֵּילָא קָא אָתֵי, דְּלָא חָסְרִי בַּהּ מְזוֹנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**so too** in the case of a cow that was **leased or rented,** the *baraita* is referring only to a case where **the enhancement came by itself, as** the brothers **did not lose** money for **its sustenance,** since it was stipulated that the one who rented or leased it would provide its feed.


###### Bava Batra 124a:2
[Bava Batra 124a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/124a:2)

מַנִּי – רַבִּי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: אֵין בְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּשֶׁבַח שֶׁשָּׁבְחוּ נְכָסִים לְאַחַר מִיתַת אֲבִיהֶן. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, אוֹמֵר אֲנִי: בְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּשֶׁבַח שֶׁשָּׁבְחוּ נְכָסִים לְאַחַר מִיתַת אֲבִיהֶן, אֲבָל לֹא בְּשֶׁבַח שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחוּ יְתוֹמִים לְאַחַר מִיתַת אֲבִיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara continues its discussion of the *baraita*. In accordance with **whose** opinion is the *baraita*? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **as it is taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 7:4): **A firstborn does not take a double** portion **of the enhancement of the property** that occurred **after the death of** the sons’ **father. Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says: I say** that **a firstborn does take a double** portion **of the enhancement of the property** that occurred by itself **after their father’s death,** e.g., the birth of a calf, **but not of the enhancement that the orphans caused after their father’s death.**


###### Bava Batra 124a:3
[Bava Batra 124a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/124a:3)

יָרְשׁוּ שְׁטַר חוֹב – בְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם. יָצָא עֲלֵיהֶן שְׁטַר חוֹב – בְּכוֹר נוֹתֵן פִּי שְׁנַיִם. וְאִם אָמַר: ״אֵינִי נוֹתֵן, וְאֵינִי נוֹטֵל״ – רַשַּׁאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi continues: Therefore, if they **inherited a promissory note** indicating a debt owed to their father, the **firstborn takes a double** portion of the money when it is collected, as this is an enhancement to the estate that came by itself. The Gemara adds: In a case where **a promissory note emerged against them** for their father’s debt, the **firstborn gives,** i.e., repays, **a double** portion of the debt. **But if he says: I am not giving** a double portion of the debt **and I am not taking** a double portion of the estate, he is **permitted** to do so, and he is exempt from paying a double portion.


###### Bava Batra 124a:4
[Bava Batra 124a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/124a:4)

מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּרַבָּנַן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״לָתֶת לוֹ פִּי שְׁנַיִם״ – ״מַתָּנָה״ קַרְיֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא; מָה מַתָּנָה – עַד דְּמָטְיָא לִידֵיהּ, אַף חֵלֶק בְּכוֹרָה – עַד דְּמָטְיָא לִידֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for the ruling **of the Rabbis** that the firstborn does not receive a double portion of any enhancements that occur after the death of the father? **The verse states: “Giving him a double portion”** (Deuteronomy 21:17); by employing the term “giving” **the Merciful One calls** the double portion **a gift. Just as** a recipient of a gift does not acquire **a gift unless it** first **reaches the possession of** the one giving the gift, **so too** the firstborn does not acquire **the portion of the firstborn unless it has reached the possession of** the father before he died.


###### Bava Batra 124a:5
[Bava Batra 124a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/124a:5)

וְרַבִּי אוֹמֵר, אָמַר קְרָא: ״פִּי שְׁנַיִם״ – מַקִּישׁ חֵלֶק בְּכוֹרָה לְחֵלֶק פָּשׁוּט; מָה חֵלֶק פָּשׁוּט – אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא מְטָא לִידֵיהּ, אַף חֵלֶק בְּכוֹרָה – אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא מְטָא לִידֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says** that the reason for his ruling that a firstborn receives a double portion of the enhancement is that **the verse states: “A double portion”** (Deuteronomy 21:17). It **juxtaposes the portion of the firstborn to the portion of an ordinary** son, in that **just as the portion of an ordinary** son is inherited **even** from property **that did not reach** the father’s **possession** before he died, **so too, the portion of the firstborn** is inherited **even** from property **that did not reach** the father’s **possession** before he died.


###### Bava Batra 124a:6
[Bava Batra 124a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/124a:6)

וְרַבָּנַן נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב: ״פִּי שְׁנַיִם״! הָהוּא לְמִיתְּבָא לֵיהּ אַחַד מִצְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** according to **the Rabbis as well, isn’t** the phrase **“a double portion” written?** The Gemara answers: **That** phrase can be said to teach a different *halakha*, requiring the brothers **to give** the firstborn both of his portions **on one border,** i.e., adjoining, and not in separate locations.


###### Bava Batra 124a:7
[Bava Batra 124a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/124a:7)

וְרַבִּי נָמֵי הָכְתִיב: ״לָתֶת לוֹ״! הַהוּא שֶׁאִם אָמַר: ״אֵינִי נוֹטֵל וְאֵינִי נוֹתֵן״ – רַשַּׁאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** according to **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **as well, isn’t** the phrase **“giving him” written?** The Gemara answers: **That** phrase can be said to teach a different *halakha*, **that if** the firstborn **says: I am not taking** a double portion of the estate **and I am not giving** a double portion of the debt, he is **permitted** to do so. Since the inheritance is referred to as a gift, he has the right to refuse it.


###### Bava Batra 124a:8
[Bava Batra 124a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/124a:8)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: דִּיקְלָא וַאֲלֵים, אַרְעָא וְאַסֵּיק שִׂירְטוֹן – דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּשָׁקֵיל. כִּי פְּלִיגִי – בַּחֲפוּרָה וַהֲוָה שׁוּבְלֵי, שְׁלוּפְפֵי וַהֲווֹ תַּמְרֵי; דְּמָר סָבַר: שְׁבָחָא דְּמִמֵּילָא, וּמָר סָבַר: אִישְׁתַּנִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara discusses several types of enhancement. **Rav Pappa says:** With regard to **a palm tree that** became enhanced by **growing broader** after the father’s death, or **land that yielded silt** and thereby became enhanced, **everyone agrees that** the firstborn **takes** a double portion of the enhancement. **When they disagree** is in a case **when fodder [*baḥafura*],** i.e., grain that has grown stalks but is not yet ripe, **becomes full ears,** of grain, and when **date flowers [*shelofafei*] become** fully developed **dates.** As one **Sage,** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, **holds** that since this **enhancement** develops **by itself,** the firstborn is entitled to a double portion of it, **and** one **Sage,** the Rabbis, **holds** that since the item **transformed,** it is not considered the same item that was in the father’s possession, and the firstborn is not entitled to a double portion of it.


###### Bava Batra 124a:9
[Bava Batra 124a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/124a:9)

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר חָנָא אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא: עָשָׂה כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי – עָשָׂה. כְּדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים – עָשָׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabba bar Ḥana says** that **Rabbi Ḥiyya says:** A judge who **acted,** i.e., ruled, **in accordance with the statement of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **has acted** legally, and one who acted **in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis has** also **acted** legally. Either way, the decision stands.