## Bava Batra Daf 127a

###### Bava Batra 127a:1
[Bava Batra 127a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/127a:1)

אַמֵּימָר אָמַר: אַף אֵינוֹ מְמַעֵט חֵלֶק בְּכוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְיָלְדָה לוֹ בָּנִים״ – עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בֵּן בִּשְׁעַת לֵידָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ameimar says:** A *tumtum* who was found to be male **also does not reduce the** additional **portion of the firstborn.** His portion is not taken into account in the calculation of the firstborn’s additional portion. For example, if there are three brothers: A firstborn, an ordinary brother, and a *tumtum*, the firstborn receives one-third of the property as his additional portion, as he would if he and the ordinary brother were the only heirs, and the remaining two-thirds are divided among all three brothers. This is **because it is stated** with regard to the portion of the firstborn: **“And they have borne him sons”** (Deuteronomy 21:15), which is interpreted to mean that the brother of a firstborn does not affect his additional portion **unless he is** recognized as **a son at the moment of** his **birth.**


###### Bava Batra 127a:2
[Bava Batra 127a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/127a:2)

רַב שֵׁיזְבִי אָמַר: אַף אֵינוֹ נִימּוֹל לִשְׁמֹנָה, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״אִשָּׁה כִּי תַזְרִיעַ וְיָלְדָה זָכָר״, ״וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי יִמּוֹל״ – עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא זָכָר מִשְּׁעַת לֵידָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheizevi says:** A *tumtum* who was found to be male **is also not circumcised on** the **eighth** day, if his eighth day occurs on Shabbat, although the mitzva of circumcision on the eighth day generally overrides Shabbat prohibtions. **As the verse states: “If a woman bears seed and gives birth to a male** then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of the impurity of her sickness shall she be unclean. **And on the eighth day** the flesh of his foreskin **shall be circumcised”** (Leviticus 12:2–3), which is interpreted to mean that he is not circumcised on the eighth day, in the event that it occurs on Shabbat, **unless he is** recognized as **a male from the moment of** his **birth.**


###### Bava Batra 127a:3
[Bava Batra 127a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/127a:3)

רַב שֵׁרֵבְיָא אָמַר: אַף אֵין אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה לֵידָה, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״אִשָּׁה כִּי תַזְרִיעַ וְיָלְדָה זָכָר וְטָמְאָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים״ – עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא זָכָר מִשְּׁעַת לֵידָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sherevya says: His mother is also not** rendered **ritually impure** due to his **birth, as the verse states: “If a woman bears seed and gives birth to a male, then she shall be unclean seven days,”** which is interpreted to mean that she is not rendered impure **unless he is** recognized as **a male from the moment of** his **birth.**


###### Bava Batra 127a:4
[Bava Batra 127a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/127a:4)

מֵיתִיבִי: הַמַּפֶּלֶת טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס – תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵיבָה. תְּיוּבְתֵּיהּ דְּרַב שֵׁרֵבְיָא! תְּיוּבְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from a mishna (*Nidda* 28a): A woman **who miscarries a *tumtum* or a hermaphrodite [*ve’androginos*] observes** the strictures of a woman who gave birth **to a male and to a female.** Since it is uncertain whether the fetus is male or female, the woman must observe the *halakhot* of ritual impurity according to both possibilities. This appears to be **a conclusive refutation** of the statement **of Rav Sherevya** that a woman who gives birth to a *tumtum* is not rendered impure at all. The Gemara affirms: This is **a conclusive refutation.**


###### Bava Batra 127a:5
[Bava Batra 127a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/127a:5)

לֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב שֵׁיזְבִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Shall we say it is** also **a conclusive refutation** of the statement **of Rav Sheizevi** with regard to circumcision, as the *halakha* of circumsicion is stated together with the *halakha* of ritual impurity?


###### Bava Batra 127a:6
[Bava Batra 127a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/127a:6)

תַּנָּא סַפּוֹקֵי מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ, וּלְחוּמְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The ***tanna*** of the mishna in tractate *Nidda* **is uncertain** whether the birth discussed in the verse includes that of a *tumtum*, **and** therefore he rules **stringently,** that she should observe the *halakhot* of ritual impurity for both possibilities. Rav Sheizevi’s ruling can follow the same logic: The infant should not be circumcised on Shabbat, as it is uncertain whether the mitzva of his circumcision overrides the prohibitions of Shabbat.


###### Bava Batra 127a:7
[Bava Batra 127a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/127a:7)

אִי הָכִי, ״תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה וּלְנִדָּה״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** that the *tanna* of the mishna in tractate *Nidda* is uncertain whether the birth discussed in the verse includes that of a *tumtum*, the mishna **should have** stated that the woman **observes** the strictures of a woman who gave birth **to** both **a male and to a female, and** also **as a menstruating woman.** If it is uncertain whether the *halakhot* of ritual purity after birth pertain to a woman who gives birth to a *tumtum* at all, she should observe the *halakhot* of ritual impurity for any blood that emerges in the time period following the birth, as it should have the status of the blood of a menstruating woman. The Gemara concludes: This poses **a difficulty.**


###### Bava Batra 127a:8
[Bava Batra 127a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/127a:8)

אָמַר רָבָא, תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי: ״בֵּן״ – וְלֹא טוּמְטוּם, ״בְּכוֹר״ – וְלֹא סָפֵק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says** that **it is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Ami** that a *tumtum* firstborn does not receive a double portion of the inheritance. The *baraita* states: From the phrase “the firstborn son” (Deuteronomy 21:15) it is derived that only **a son** receives a double portion, **but not a *tumtum*,** and only a definite **firstborn** receives a double portion, **but not** one about whom it is **uncertain** if he is a firstborn.


###### Bava Batra 127a:9
[Bava Batra 127a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/127a:9)

בִּשְׁלָמָא ״בֵּן״ וְלֹא טוּמְטוּם – כִּדְרַבִּי אַמֵּי. אֶלָּא ״בְּכוֹר״ וְלֹא סָפֵק – לְאַפּוֹקֵי מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Granted,** the *halakha* that **a son** receives a double portion **but a *tumtum*** does **not** is understandable, as it **is in accordance with** the statement **of Rabbi Ami, but what** case **does** the *halakha* that only a definite **firstborn** receives a double portion **but not** one about whom it is **uncertain** if he is a firstborn serve **to exclude?** Why would one about whom it is uncertain if he is a firstborn receive a double portion?


###### Bava Batra 127a:10
[Bava Batra 127a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/127a:10)

לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּדָרֵשׁ רָבָא, דְּדָרֵשׁ רָבָא: שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים שֶׁיָּלְדוּ שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים בְּמַחֲבֵא, כּוֹתְבִין הַרְשָׁאָה זֶה לָזֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It serves **to exclude that which Rava taught, as Rava taught** that if **two wives** of the same husband **gave birth to two males in hiding,** so that it is unknown which son was born first, and the husband subsequently had other sons, **each** of the two possible firstborns **writes an authorization to the other.** Since their brothers can claim against each of them individually that he is not the firstborn and does not deserve a double portion, each writes the other an authorization to collect his portion, so that they can jointly claim the additional portion in any event.


###### Bava Batra 127a:11
[Bava Batra 127a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/127a:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְרָבָא, וְהָא שְׁלַח רָבִין: דָּבָר זֶה שָׁאַלְתִּי לְכׇל רַבּוֹתַי וְלֹא אָמְרוּ לִי דָּבָר, בְּרַם כָּךְ אָמְרוּ מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יַנַּאי: הוּכְּרוּ, וּלְבַסּוֹף נִתְעָרְבוּ – כּוֹתְבִין הַרְשָׁאָה זֶה לָזֶה. לֹא הוּכְּרוּ – אֵין כּוֹתְבִין הַרְשָׁאָה זֶה לָזֶה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa** subsequently **said to Rava: But didn’t Ravin send** a letter from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, stating: **I asked all my teachers** about **this matter and they did not tell me anything; but this** is what **they said in the name of Rabbi Yannai:** If the two sons **were** initially **recognized,** i.e., it was known which one of them was the firstborn, **and** they **were ultimately mixed,** and now the firstborn cannot be identified, **each writes an authorization to the other.** If **they were not** initially **recognized, each does not write an authorization to the other.**


###### Bava Batra 127a:12
[Bava Batra 127a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/127a:12)

הֲדַר אוֹקִי רָבָא אָמוֹרָא עֲלֵיהּ, וּדְרַשׁ: דְּבָרִים שֶׁאָמַרְתִּי לָכֶם – טָעוּת הֵן בְּיָדִי, בְּרַם כָּךְ אָמְרוּ מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יַנַּאי: הוּכְּרוּ וּלְבַסּוֹף נִתְעָרְבוּ – כּוֹתְבִין הַרְשָׁאָה זֶה לְזֶה, לֹא הוּכְּרוּ – אֵין כּוֹתְבִין הַרְשָׁאָה זֶה לָזֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava then established an *amora*** to repeat his lesson to the masses aloud **and taught: The statements that I said to you are a mistake on my** part. **But this** is what **they said in the name of Rabbi Yannai:** If the two sons **were** initially **recognized and were ultimately mixed, each writes an authorization to the other.** If **they were not** initially **recognized, each does not write an authorization to the other.**


###### Bava Batra 127a:13
[Bava Batra 127a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/127a:13)

שְׁלַחוּ לֵיהּ בְּנֵי אַקְרָא דְאַגְמָא לִשְׁמוּאֵל, יְלַמְּדֵנוּ רַבֵּינוּ: הָיוּ מוּחְזָקִין בָּזֶה – שֶׁהוּא בְּכוֹר, וְאָמַר אָבִיו עַל אַחֵר ״בְּכוֹר הוּא״, מַהוּ? שְׁלַח לְהוּ: כּוֹתְבִין הַרְשָׁאָה

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The residents of Akra De’Agma sent** the following inquiry **to Shmuel: Teach us, our master:** If the court **had a presumption concerning this** son, **that he is a firstborn, and his father says concerning another** son of his: **He is** his **firstborn, what is** the *halakha*? Shmuel **sent to them** in response: Both of these sons **write an authorization,**