## Bava Batra Daf 126a

###### Bava Batra 126a:1
[Bava Batra 126a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/126a:1)

וּמִלְוָה שֶׁעִמּוֹ, פָּלְגִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** as for **a loan that is with** the firstborn, i.e., he had borrowed money from his father, then his father died, it is uncertain whether the payment should be considered property due to the father or property possessed by him. Therefore, the firstborn and his brothers **divide** the additional portion.


###### Bava Batra 126a:2
[Bava Batra 126a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/126a:2)

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: בְּכוֹר שֶׁמִּיחָה – מִיחָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ With regard to the *halakha* that the firstborn is not entitled to a double portion of the enhancement of the property resulting from the actions of the heirs, **Rav Huna says** that **Rav Asi says: A firstborn who protested** the efforts of enhancing the property before it is divided has **protested,** and if the brothers use resources from the estate to enhance it against his will, he is entitled to a double portion of the enhanced value.


###### Bava Batra 126a:3
[Bava Batra 126a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/126a:3)

אָמַר רַבָּה: מִסְתַּבֵּר טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַב אַסִּי בַּעֲנָבִים – וּבְצָרוּם, זֵיתִים – וּמְסָקוּם; אֲבָל דְּרָכוּם – לָא. וְרַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ דְּרָכוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba said: Rav Asi’s opinion is reasonable in** a case where they inherited **grapes** on a grapevine **and** the brothers **harvested them** against the will of the firstborn, or if they inherited **olives** on olive trees **and** the brothers **harvested them,** as in these cases, the produce itself did not change. **But** if **they treaded** on **them,** converting them into wine or oil, even if the firstborn protested their doing so, he is **not** entitled to a double portion. **And Rav Yosef said: Even** if they **treaded** on **them,** the firstborn is entitled to a double portion.


###### Bava Batra 126a:4
[Bava Batra 126a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/126a:4)

דְּרָכוּם?! מֵעִיקָּרָא עִינְבֵי, הַשְׁתָּא חַמְרָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Why is he entitled to a double portion, according to Rav Yosef, even if **they treaded** on **them?** Since the brothers transformed the produce, as **initially** it was in the form of **grapes** and **now** it is **wine,** they have acquired it in the same manner that a thief acquires an item he stole. Therefore, the firstborn should have no share of the enhancement.


###### Bava Batra 126a:5
[Bava Batra 126a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/126a:5)

כִּדְאָמַר רַב עוּקְבָא בַּר חָמָא: לִיתֵּן לוֹ דְּמֵי הֶיזֵּק עֲנָבָיו; הָכָא נָמֵי – נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי הֶיזֵּק עֲנָבָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Rav Yosef did not mean that the firstborn is entitled to a double portion of the enhanced value of the wine. Rather, his intention was the same **as** that **which Rav Ukva bar Ḥama says** in a different context, that the ruling is referring **to** a case where the wine spoiled, its value decreasing to below the initial value of the grapes, in which case the brothers must **give** the firstborn **payment for** the **damage** to **his** additional portion of the **grapes. Here, too,** Rav Yosef meant that the brothers **must give** the firstborn **payment for** the **damage to his grapes.**


###### Bava Batra 126a:6
[Bava Batra 126a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/126a:6)

הֵיכָא אִיתְּמַר דְּרַב עוּקְבָא בַּר חָמָא? אַהָא – דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בְּכוֹר וּפָשׁוּט שֶׁהִנִּיחַ לָהֶן אֲבִיהֶן עֲנָבִים, וּבְצָרוּם; זֵיתִים, וּמְסָקוּם – בְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם, אֲפִילּוּ דְּרָכוּם. דְּרָכוּם?! מֵעִיקָּרָא עִינְבֵי, הַשְׁתָּא חַמְרָא! אָמַר מָר עוּקְבָא בַּר חָמָא: לִיתֵּן לוֹ דְּמֵי הֶיזֵּק עֲנָבָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Where,** i.e., in what context, **was** the statement **of Rav Ukva bar Ḥama stated?** It was **in reference to that which Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says:** With regard to **a firstborn and an ordinary** son **whose father left them grapes and they harvested them,** or if he left them **olives and they harvested them,** the **firstborn takes a double** portion. This is the *halakha* **even** if **they treaded** on **them.** The Gemara asks: Why is he entitled to a double portion if **they treaded** on **them; initially** they were **grapes,** and **now** it is **wine? Mar Ukva bar Ḥama says:** Shmuel did not mean that he is entitled to a double portion of the wine; rather, the reference is **to** a case where the wine spoiled, its value decreasing to below the initial value of the grapes, in which case the ordinary brother must **give** the firstborn **payment for** the **damage** to **his grapes.**


###### Bava Batra 126a:7
[Bava Batra 126a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/126a:7)

אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: בְּכוֹר שֶׁנָּטַל חֵלֶק כְּפָשׁוּט – וִיתֵּר. מַאי ״וִיתֵּר״? רַב פָּפָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא אָמַר: וִיתֵּר בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׂדֶה. רַב פַּפִּי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא אָמַר: וִיתֵּר בְּכׇל הַנְּכָסִים כּוּלָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Asi says: A firstborn who took a portion** of the property **like** that of **an ordinary** heir has **relinquished** his right to an additional portion. The Gemara asks: **What** does it mean that he has **relinquished** his additional portion? **Rav Pappa says in the name of Rava** that he has **relinquished** his additional portion only **with regard to that field** that was divided, since he did not exercise his right to an additional portion, but he has not relinquished his right to receive an additional portion of the rest of the estate. **Rav Pappi says in the name of Rava** that he has **relinquished** his additional portion **with regard to all** of **the property.**


###### Bava Batra 126a:8
[Bava Batra 126a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/126a:8)

רַב פָּפָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא אָמַר: וִיתֵּר בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׂדֶה – קָא סָבַר: אֵין לוֹ לַבְּכוֹר קוֹדֶם חֲלוּקָּה; וּמָה דַּאֲתָא לִידֵיהּ – אַחֵיל, אִידַּךְ לָא אַחֵיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Rav Pappa says in the name of Rava** that he has **relinquished** his additional portion only **with regard to that field** that was divided, because he **holds** that **a firstborn does not have** a right to his additional portion **before** the **division** of the property. **And** therefore, he **has waived** his additional portion of **what has** already **reached his possession,** namely, the field that was divided, but he **has not waived** his portion of **the other** fields of the estate.


###### Bava Batra 126a:9
[Bava Batra 126a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/126a:9)

וְרַב פַּפֵּי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא אָמַר: וִיתֵּר בְּכׇל הַנְּכָסִים כּוּלָּן – קָא סָבַר: יֵשׁ לוֹ לִבְכוֹר קוֹדֶם חֲלוּקָּה; וּמִדְּאַחֵיל בְּהָא – אַחֵיל בְּכוּלְּהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Pappi says in the name of Rava** that he has **relinquished** his additional portion **with regard to all** of **the property,** as **he holds** that **a firstborn has** a right to his additional portion **before** the **division** of the property. **And** therefore, **since** he **waived** his additional portion **in this** field, he **has waived** his portion **of all** of the property.


###### Bava Batra 126a:10
[Bava Batra 126a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/126a:10)

וְהָא דְּרַב פַּפֵּי וְרַב פָּפָּא – לָאו בְּפֵירוּשׁ אִיתְּמַר, אֶלָּא מִכְּלָלָא אִיתְּמַר – דְּהָהוּא בְּכוֹר דַּאֲזַל זַבֵּין נִכְסֵי דִּידֵיהּ וּדְפָשׁוּט. אֲזוּל יַתְמֵי בְּנֵי פָּשׁוּט לְמֵיכַל תַּמְרֵי מֵהָנְהוּ לָקוֹחוֹת, מְחוֹנְהוּ. אָמְרִי לְהוּ קְרוֹבִים: לָא מִיסָּתְיָיא דִּזְבַנְתִּינְהוּ לְנִכְסַיְיהוּ, אֶלָּא מִימְחֵא נָמֵי מָחִיתוּ לְהוּ? אֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, אֲמַר לְהוּ: לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And this** dispute **of Rav Pappi and Rav Pappa was not stated explicitly; rather, it was stated by inference. As** there was **a certain firstborn who went** and **sold his property and** the property **of** his deceased **ordinary** brother, i.e., their respective portions of their father’s property, before the property was divided. The **orphan sons of** the **ordinary** brother **went to eat dates from** the field that was now in the possession of **those purchasers,** due to their father’s share in the field. The purchasers **hit them,** as though they were thieves. The **relatives** of the orphans **said to** the purchasers: **Not only did you purchase their property** illegally, **but you now hit them as well? They came before Rava,** who **said to them:** The firstborn **has done nothing.** His sale was not valid.