## Bava Batra Daf 126b

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

מָר סָבַר: לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם – בְּפַלְגָא. וּמָר סָבַר: בְּכוּלְּהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Pappi and Rav Pappa disagree with regard to Rava’s intention. One **Sage,** Rav Pappi, **holds** that **he has done nothing with regard to** his brother’s **portion,** as he had no right to sell it; with regard to his own additional portion, the sale was valid, as it was in his possession even before the division of the property. **And** one **Sage,** Rav Pappa, **holds** that he has done nothing **with regard to all** of the property, as he does not possess the additional portion before the property is divided between the brothers.


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

שְׁלַחוּ מִתָּם: בְּכוֹר שֶׁמָּכַר קוֹדֶם חֲלוּקָּה – לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם. אַלְמָא אֵין לוֹ לַבְּכוֹר קוֹדֶם חֲלוּקָּה. וְהִלְכְתָא: יֵשׁ לַבְּכוֹר קוֹדֶם חֲלוּקָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes that **they sent** a ruling **from there,** Eretz Yisrael: **A firstborn who sold** his additional portion **before** the **division** of the property **has done nothing. Apparently,** the Sages of Eretz Yisrael hold that **a firstborn does not have** a right to his additional portion **before** the **division. But the *halakha*** is that **a firstborn has** a right to his additional portion **before** the **division.**


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

מָר זוּטְרָא מִדְּרִישְׁבָּא פְּלַג בְּצַנָּא דְפִלְפְּלֵי בַּהֲדֵי אַחִין, בְּשָׁוֶה. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב אָשֵׁי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הוֹאִיל וִיתַּרְתָּה בְּמִקְצָת – וִיתַּרְתָּה בְּכׇל הַנְּכָסִים כּוּלָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **Mar Zutra of** the house **of Rishba,** who was a firstborn, **divided a basket of peppers** from the estate of his father **with** his **brothers equally.** He **came before Rav Ashi** to claim a double portion of the rest of the estate. Rav Ashi **said to him: Since you relinquished** your additional portion **with regard to some** of the estate, **you have relinquished** your additional portion **with regard to all of the property,** as a firstborn has a right to his additional portion before the division.


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

**מַתְנִי׳** הָאוֹמֵר: ״אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי בְּנִי בְּכוֹר לֹא יִטּוֹל פִּי שְׁנַיִם״; ״אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי בְּנִי לֹא יִירַשׁ עִם אֶחָיו״ – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם, שֶׁהִתְנָה עַל מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In a case of **one who says: So-and-so, my firstborn son, will not take a double** portion of my estate; or one who says: **So-and-so, my son, will not inherit** my estate **among his brothers, he has said nothing, as he has stipulated counter to that which is written in the Torah.**


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

הַמְחַלֵּק נְכָסָיו עַל פִּיו; רִיבָּה לְאֶחָד וּמִיעֵט לְאֶחָד, וְהִשְׁוָה לָהֶן אֶת הַבְּכוֹר – דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין. וְאִם אָמַר מִשּׁוּם יְרוּשָּׁה – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. כָּתַב בֵּין בַּתְּחִלָּה בֵּין בָּאֶמְצַע בֵּין בַּסּוֹף – מִשּׁוּם מַתָּנָה, דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to **one** on his deathbed **who apportions his property orally,** granting it to his sons as a gift, and he **increased** the portion given **to one** of his sons **and reduced** the portion given **to one** son, **or equated** the portion of **the firstborn to** the portions of the other sons, **his statement stands. But if he said** that they will receive the property not as a gift but **as inheritance, he has said nothing.** If he **wrote** in his will, **whether at the beginning, or in the middle, or at the end,** that he is granting them the property **as a gift, his statement stands.**


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

**גְּמָ׳** לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? דְּאִי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הָאָמַר: בְּדָבָר שֶׁל מָמוֹן תְּנָאוֹ קַיָּים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara suggests: **Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, as if** it is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, doesn’t he say** elsewhere that if one stipulates counter to that which is written in the Torah **with regard to monetary matters, his stipulation stands?**


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

דְּתַנְיָא, הָאוֹמֵר לְאִשָּׁה: ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת לִי, עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֵין לִיךְ עָלַי שְׁאֵר כְּסוּת וְעוֹנָה״ – הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, וּתְנָאוֹ בָּטֵל; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּדָבָר שֶׁל מָמוֹן – תְּנָאוֹ קַיָּים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Kiddushin* 3:7): If one **says to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me on the condition that you have no** ability to claim **from me food, clothing, and conjugal rights, she is betrothed and his stipulation is void;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to monetary matters,** such as food and clothing, **his stipulation stands,** despite being counter to that which is written in the Torah. According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, one should be able to stipulate that his firstborn son not receive a double portion, or that one of his sons not inherit from him at all, as inheritance is a monetary matter.


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

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: הָתָם יָדְעָה וְקָא מָחֲלָה, הָכָא לָא קָא מָחֵיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **Even** if **you say** that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, there,** the woman **knew** of his stipulation **and waived** her rights. Therefore, the stipulation stands. **Here,** the son whose portion was reduced **did not waive** his portion. Therefore the stipulation is not valid.


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

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, אָמַר: ״אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי בְּנִי, בְּכוֹרִי הוּא״ – נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם. ״אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי בְּכוֹר הוּא״ – אֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם, דִּלְמָא בּוּכְרָא דְאִמָּא קָאָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Yosef says** that if a man **says: So-and-so is my firstborn son,** the son **takes a double** portion of his inheritance based on this testimony. If he says: **So-and-so is a firstborn,** the son **does not take a double** portion, as **perhaps** the man **was saying** that the son is his **mother’s firstborn** but not his own firstborn.


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

הָהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מוּחְזְקַנִי בָּזֶה שֶׁהוּא בְּכוֹר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מְנָא יָדְעַתְּ? דַּהֲוָה קָרֵי לֵיהּ אֲבוּהּ ״בּוּכְרָא סַכְלָא״. דִּלְמָא בּוּכְרָא דְאִמָּא הוּא, דְּכׇל בּוּכְרָא דְאִמָּא נָמֵי ״בּוּכְרָא סַכְלָא״ קָארוּ לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: There was **a certain** man **who came before Rabba bar bar Ḥana** and **said to him: I know that this** man **is a firstborn.** Rabba bar bar Ḥana **said to him: From where do you know?** He answered: **Because his father would call him a foolish firstborn.** Rabba bar bar Ḥana replied: **Perhaps he is** his **mother’s firstborn, as any firstborn of a mother is also called a foolish firstborn.**


###### Bava Batra 126b:11
[Bava Batra 126b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/126b:11)

הָהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מוּחְזְקַנִי בָּזֶה שֶׁהוּא בְּכוֹר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מְנָא יָדְעַתְּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דְּכִי הֲווֹ אָתוּ לְגַבֵּי אֲבוּהּ, אֲמַר לְהוּ: זִילוּ לְגַבֵּי שִׁכְחַת בְּרִי, דְּבוּכְרָא הוּא וּמַסֵּי רוּקֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: There was **a certain** man **who came before Rabbi Ḥanina** and **said to him: I know that this** man **is a firstborn.** Rabbi Ḥanina **said to him: From where do you know? He said to** Rabbi Ḥanina: **Because when** people **would come before his father** to obtain a cure for their ailing eyes, **he would say to them: Go to my son Shikhḥat, as he is a firstborn and his saliva heals** this ailment.


###### Bava Batra 126b:12
[Bava Batra 126b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/126b:12)

וְדִלְמָא בּוּכְרָא דְאִמָּא הוּא! גְּמִירִי: בּוּכְרָא דְאַבָּא – מַסֵּי רוּקֵּיהּ, בּוּכְרָא דְאִמָּא – לָא מַסֵּי רוּקֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But perhaps he is** his **mother’s firstborn?** The Gemara answers: It **is learned** as a tradition that **the saliva of a father’s firstborn heals** this ailment but **the saliva of a mother’s firstborn does not heal** this ailment.


###### Bava Batra 126b:13
[Bava Batra 126b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/126b:13)

אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: טוּמְטוּם שֶׁנִּקְרַע וְנִמְצָא זָכָר, אֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם; דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהָיָה הַבֵּן הַבְּכוֹר לַשְּׂנִיאָה״ – עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בֵּן מִשְּׁעַת הֲוָיָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Ami says:** In the case of **one whose sexual organs are indeterminate [*tumtum*]** and **whose** skin **became perforated** so that his genitals were exposed **and** he **was found** to be **a male,** he **does not take a double** portion of his father’s estate. **As the verse states: “And if the firstborn son was [*vehaya*] hers that was hated”** (Deuteronomy 21:15), which is interpreted to mean that he is not considered a firstborn **unless he is** recognized as **a son,** i.e., male, **from the moment of** his coming into **being [*havaya*],** i.e., his birth.


###### Bava Batra 126b:14
[Bava Batra 126b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/126b:14)

רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: אַף אֵינוֹ נִידּוֹן כְּבֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״כִּי יִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה״ – עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בֵּן מִשְּׁעַת הֲוָיָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says:** A *tumtum* who was found to be male **is also not judged as a stubborn and rebellious son, as the verse states: “If there will be [*yihyeh*] to a man a stubborn and rebellious son”** (Deuteronomy 21:18), which is interpreted to mean that one is not judged in this manner **unless he is** recognized as **a son from the moment of** his coming into **being.**