## Bava Batra Daf 124b

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

מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ אִי הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי מֵחֲבֵירוֹ – וְלֹא מֵחֲבֵירָיו; אוֹ הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי מֵחֲבֵירוֹ – וַאֲפִילּוּ מֵחֲבֵירָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: Rabbi Ḥiyya **is uncertain** as to **whether** the principle that the ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi in his disputes **with his colleague** applies specifically to a dispute with one other *tanna* **but not** to a dispute **with** several of **his colleagues, or** whether the principle that the ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi in his disputes **with his colleague** applies **even to** a dispute with several of **his colleagues,** as in this case, where the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Since he was uncertain, he left the decision to each individual judge.


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

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַב: אָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי. קָא סָבַר: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי מֵחֲבֵירוֹ – וְלֹא מֵחֲבֵירָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman says** that **Rav says:** It is **prohibited to act in accordance with the statement of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. The Gemara explains: Rav **holds** that the ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi in his disputes **with his** single **colleague, but not** in his disputes **with** several of **his colleagues.**


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

וְרַב נַחְמָן דִּידֵיהּ אָמַר: מוּתָּר לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי. קָא סָבַר: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי מֵחֲבֵירוֹ – וַאֲפִילּוּ מֵחֲבֵירָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Naḥman says his own** statement: It is **permitted to act in accordance with the statement of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. The Gemara explains: **He holds** that the ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi not only in his disputes **with his** single **colleague, but even** in his disputes **with** several of **his colleagues.**


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

אָמַר רָבָא: אָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי, וְאִם עָשָׂה – עָשׂוּי. קָא סָבַר: מַטִּין אִיתְּמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says:** It is **prohibited to act in accordance with the statement of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **but if** a judge **acted** in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, what is done **is done** and the decision stands. The Gemara explains: **He holds** that it **was stated** that **one is inclined** to follow the opinion of the Rabbis *ab initio*, but if a judge rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, his decision stands.


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

תָּנֵי רַב נַחְמָן בִּשְׁאָר סִפְרֵי דְּבֵי רַב: ״בְּכׇל אֲשֶׁר יִמָּצֵא לוֹ״ – פְּרָט לְשֶׁבַח שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחוּ יוֹרְשִׁין לְאַחַר מִיתַת אֲבִיהֶן. אֲבָל שֶׁבַח שֶׁשָּׁבְחוּ נְכָסִים לְאַחַר מִיתַת אֲבִיהֶן – שָׁקֵיל. וּמַנִּי – רַבִּי הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments that there are conflicting opinions in halakhic midrash as to whether the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi or in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as each opinion is supported by a different version of the midrash. **Rav Naḥman taught** a *baraita* **from the other books of the school of Rav [*debei Rav*],** i.e., a volume of halakhic midrash other than *Torat Kohanim*, which is a halakhic midrash on the book of Leviticus. The phrase from the verse: “By giving him a double portion **of all that he has”** (Deuteronomy 21:17), **excludes the enhancement that the heirs brought about after their father’s death,** of which the firstborn is not entitled to a double portion. The Gemara infers: **But** of **the enhancement of the property** that occurred by itself **after their father’s death, he does take** a double portion. The Gemara comments: **And whose** opinion is this? **It is** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi.


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

תָּנֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא בִּשְׁאָר סִפְרֵי דְּבֵי רַב: ״בְּכׇל אֲשֶׁר יִמָּצֵא לוֹ״ – פְּרָט לְשֶׁבַח שֶׁשָּׁבְחוּ נְכָסִים לְאַחַר מִיתַת אֲבִיהֶן, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁבַח שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחוּ יוֹרְשִׁין לְאַחַר מִיתַת אֲבִיהֶן – דְּלָא שָׁקֵיל. וּמַנִּי – רַבָּנַן הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rami bar Ḥama taught** a different version of the *baraita* **from the other books of the school of Rav: “Of all that he has” excludes** the **enhancement of the property** that occurred by itself **after their father’s death,** of which the firstborn is not entitled to a double portion. The Gemara infers: **And all the more so, he does not take** a double portion of the **enhancement that the heirs brought about after their father’s death.** The Gemara comments: **And whose** opinion is this? **It is** the opinion of **the Rabbis.** Accordingly, there is a discrepancy between the *baraitot* as to whether the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis or Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.


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

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֵין בְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בַּמִּלְוָה. לְמַאן? אִילֵּימָא לְרַבָּנַן, הַשְׁתָּא שְׁבָחָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ – אָמְרִי רַבָּנַן לָא שָׁקֵיל; מִלְוָה מִבַּעְיָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says: A firstborn does not take a double** portion **of a loan,** i.e., of a debt that is owed to the father. The Gemara asks: **According to whom** is this *halakha* stated? **If we say** it is **in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis, now** that **the Rabbis say** that a firstborn **does not take** a double portion even with regard to the **enhancement** of property **that is in the possession of** the father, is it **necessary** to state that he is not entitled to a double portion of **a loan?** The debt is not in the father’s possession at the time of his death; it is merely due to him.


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

אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it must be **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. Although he holds that a firstborn is entitled to a double portion of the enhancement of the property itself, he concedes that he is not entitled to a double portion of the payment of a debt, as it was not in the possession of his father at the time of his death.


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

וְאֶלָּא הָא דְּתַנְיָא: יָרְשׁוּ שְׁטַר חוֹב – בְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם, בֵּין בַּמִּלְוָה בֵּין בָּרִבִּית. מַנִּי? לָא רַבִּי וְלָא רַבָּנַן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** if so, in accordance with **whose** opinion is **that which is taught** in a *baraita*: If the sons **inherited a promissory note,** the **firstborn takes a double** portion **of** the payment of **both** the value of **the loan** itself **and the interest?** It is **neither** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **nor** the opinion of **the Rabbis.**


###### Bava Batra 124b:10
[Bava Batra 124b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/124b:10)

לְעוֹלָם לְרַבָּנַן, וְאִצְטְרִיךְ – סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: מִלְוָה – כֵּיוָן דְּנָקֵיט שְׁטָרָא, כְּמַאן דְּגַבְיָא דָּמְיָא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Actually,** Shmuel’s statement that the firstborn is not entitled to a double portion of the payment of a debt is **in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis, and it was necessary** to state it. It might **enter your mind to say** that with regard to **a loan, since** the creditor **holds** a promissory **note, it is considered as though it has** already **been collected** and is in the creditor’s possession, so too, the firstborn should be entitled to a double portion even according to the opinion of the Rabbis. Therefore, Shmuel **teaches us** that the loan is not considered to be in the creditor’s possession, and the firstborn is not entitled to a double portion.


###### Bava Batra 124b:11
[Bava Batra 124b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/124b:11)

שְׁלַחוּ מִתָּם: בְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בַּמִּלְוָה, אֲבָל לֹא בָּרִבִּית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **They sent** the following ruling **from there,** Eretz Yisrael: If the father lent money to a gentile, the **firstborn takes a double** portion of the value **of** the **loan** itself, **but not of** the **interest,** as the interest is considered property due to the father.


###### Bava Batra 124b:12
[Bava Batra 124b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/124b:12)

לְמַאן? אִילֵּימָא לְרַבָּנַן, הַשְׁתָּא שְׁבָחָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ – אָמְרִי רַבָּנַן דְּלָא שָׁקֵיל; מִלְוָה מִבַּעְיָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **According to whom** is this *halakha* stated? **If we say** it is **in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis, now** that **the Rabbis say** that a firstborn **does not take** a double portion even with regard to the **enhancement** of property, **which is in the possession of** the father, is it **necessary** to state that they would hold that he is not entitled to a double portion of **a loan?** Since the debt is not in the father’s possession at the time of his death, as it is merely due to him, the rabbis would certainly not hold that the firstborn takes a double portion of it.


###### Bava Batra 124b:13
[Bava Batra 124b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/124b:13)

אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי. וּלְרַבִּי, בָּרִבִּית לָא?! וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: בְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם, בֵּין בַּמִּלְוָה בֵּין בָּרִבִּית!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it must be **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. The Gemara asks: **And according to** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, is it so that the firstborn is **not** entitled to a double portion **of the interest? But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says: A firstborn takes a double** portion **of both** the value of **the loan** itself **and the interest?**


###### Bava Batra 124b:14
[Bava Batra 124b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/124b:14)

לְעוֹלָם רַבָּנַן הִיא, וּמִלְוָה כְּמַאן דְּגַבְיָא דָּמְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Actually,** the *halakha* sent from the Sages of Eretz Yisrael **is** in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis. And** the Sages of Eretz Yisrael hold that the Rabbis concede that the firstborn receives a double portion of the value of the loan itself, because **a loan is considered as though it has** already **been collected** and is in the creditor’s possession. By contrast, the interest on the loan is not considered as though it is already in the creditor’s possession, and therefore the firstborn does not receive a double portion of its payment.


###### Bava Batra 124b:15
[Bava Batra 124b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/124b:15)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר רַב לְרָבִינָא: אִיקְּלַע אַמֵּימָר לְאַתְרִין, וְדָרֵישׁ: בְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בַּמִּלְוָה, אֲבָל לֹא בָּרִבִּית. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: נְהַרְדָּעֵי לְטַעְמַיְיהוּ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa bar Rav said to Ravina: Ameimar arrived at our locale and taught** that **a firstborn takes a double** portion **of** the value of **a loan** itself, **but not of** the **interest.** Ravina **said to him:** The Sages **of Neharde’a** conform **to their** standard line of **reasoning.** Ameimar followed the opinion of Rav Naḥman, who was one of the Sages of Naharde’a, as was Ameimar.


###### Bava Batra 124b:16
[Bava Batra 124b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/124b:16)

דְּאָמַר רַבָּה: גָּבוּ קַרְקַע – יֵשׁ לוֹ, גָּבוּ מָעוֹת – אֵין לוֹ. וְרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: גָּבוּ מָעוֹת – יֵשׁ לוֹ, גָּבוּ קַרְקַע – אֵין לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **As Rabba says:** If the sons **collected land** as payment of a debt owed to their father, the firstborn **has** a double portion of it, but if **they collected money, he does not have** a double portion. **And Rav Naḥman says** that if **they collected money, he has** a double portion, but if **they collected land, he does not have** a double portion.


###### Bava Batra 124b:17
[Bava Batra 124b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/124b:17)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַבָּה: לְדִידָךְ קַשְׁיָא, לְרַב נַחְמָן קַשְׁיָא. לְדִידָךְ קַשְׁיָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to Rabba: According to your** opinion it **is difficult,** and **according to** the opinion of **Rav Naḥman** it **is** also **difficult. According to your** opinion it **is difficult**