## Bava Batra Daf 127b

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

זֶה לָזֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**each to the other.**


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

מָה נַפְשָׁךְ? אִי כְּרַבָּנַן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, לִישְׁלַח לְהוּ כְּרַבָּנַן; אִי כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, לִישְׁלַח לְהוּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this ruling: **Whichever way you** look at it, Shmuel’s opinion is difficult. **If he holds in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis** with regard to this issue, **he should have sent them** a response **in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** and **if he holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, he should have sent them** a response **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda.** Shmuel’s response is not in accordance with either tannaitic opinion.


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

מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ אִי כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אִי כְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **He is uncertain whether** the *halakha* is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda or in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis.** Therefore he sent them a response that incorporates both opinions.


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

מַאי הִיא? דְּתַנְיָא: ״יַכִּיר״, יַכִּירֶנּוּ לַאֲחֵרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **What is** the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis? **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: Expounding the verse: **“He shall acknowledge** the firstborn” (Deuteronomy 21:17), the Sages said: **He shall acknowledge him to others.** In other words, a father is deemed credible to tell others that this is his firstborn.


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

מִכָּאן אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: נֶאֱמָן אָדָם לוֹמַר: ״זֶה בְּנִי בְּכוֹר״. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁנֶּאֱמָן אָדָם לוֹמַר ״זֶה בְּנִי בְּכוֹר״, כָּךְ נֶאֱמָן אָדָם לוֹמַר ״זֶה בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה״ וְ״זֶה בֶּן חֲלוּצָה״. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**From here, Rabbi Yehuda says** that **a man is deemed credible to say: This** is **my firstborn son,** even if he has sons presumed to be older. **And just as a man is deemed credible to say: This** is **my firstborn son, so too, a man** who is a priest **is deemed credible to say** about his son: **This** is **a son of a divorced woman, or: This** is **a son of a *yevama* who has performed *ḥalitza* [*ḥalutza*],** in which cases he is disqualified from the priesthood due to his flawed lineage [*ḥalal*]. **And the Rabbis say: He is not deemed credible.**


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק לְרָבָא: בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״יַכִּיר״. אֶלָּא לְרַבָּנַן, ״יַכִּיר״ לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Rava: Granted,** according **to Rabbi Yehuda, this is** the reason **that it is written: “He shall acknowledge;”** he derives from these words that a father is deemed credible to attest to the identity of his sons. **But** according **to the Rabbis, why do I** need the term **“he shall acknowledge”?**


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

בִּצְרִיךְ הֶיכֵּרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is necessary for a case **when he requires identification,** i.e., when there is no presumption as to the identity of the firstborn. In such a situation the verse teaches that the father is deemed credible. The Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion only in a case where another son is presumed to be the firstborn.


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

לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא, לְמִיתְּבָא לוֹ פִּי שְׁנַיִם? לֹא יְהֵא אֶלָּא אַחֵר – אִילּוּ בָּעֵי לְמִיתְּבָא לֵיהּ בְּמַתָּנָה, מִי לָא יָהֵיב לֵיהּ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: According to the Rabbis, **with regard to what *halakha*** is it necessary for the verse to teach that a father’s identification of his firstborn is deemed credible? If it is **with regard to giving him a double** portion, it is superfluous. **Let** the son **be only** like **another** person, i.e., one who is not an heir; **if** the father **wants to give him** a double portion of his estate **as a gift, can he not give** it to **him?** Since the father can give a double portion to the firstborn without having to testify that he is his firstborn, it cannot be that the verse is teaching us that he is deemed credible with regard to the *halakha* that a firstborn receives a double portion.


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

לָא צְרִיכָא, בִּנְכָסִים שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לוֹ לְאַחַר מִכָּאן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary with regard to property that came into** the father’s possession **afterward,** after he testified that his son is his firstborn. He could not have given him this property as a gift, as at the time of his testimony, the property did not yet belong to him, and one cannot transfer ownership of an item that one does not own. Therefore, it is necessary for the verse to teach that the father’s testimony is deemed credible so that the son can receive a double portion of the father’s future property as well.


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

וּלְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר: אָדָם מַקְנֶה דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לָעוֹלָם, ״יַכִּיר״ לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to Rabbi Meir, who says** that **a person can transfer an entity that has not** yet **come into the world,** which would mean that one can give away his property even before it enters his possession, **why do I** need the term **“he shall acknowledge”?**


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

בִּנְכָסִים שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא גּוֹסֵס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The term is necessary for a case **where property came into** the father’s possession **when he was moribund,** at which point he cannot transfer ownership of any of his property to others. It is with regard to such property that the verse states: “He shall acknowledge,” to teach that the son who the father states is the firstborn will receive a double portion even of that property.


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

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הָיוּ מוּחְזָקִין בּוֹ שֶׁהוּא בְּכוֹר, וְאָמַר אָבִיו עַל אַחֵר שֶׁהוּא בְּכוֹר – נֶאֱמָן. הָיוּ מוּחְזָקִין בּוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּכוֹר, וְאָמַר אָבִיו: בְּכוֹר הוּא – אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 7:3): If the court **had a presumption concerning** a son **that he is a firstborn, and his father said concerning another** son of his **that he is** his **firstborn,** the father’s statement is **deemed credible.** If the court **had a presumption concerning** a son **that he is not a firstborn, and his father said** that **he is** his **firstborn,** the father’s statement is **not deemed credible.**


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

רֵישָׁא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְסֵיפָא רַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asserts that as the two *halakhot* of the *baraita* seem to contradict each other, it must be that **the first clause** represents the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, and the latter clause** represents the opinion of **the Rabbis.**


###### Bava Batra 127b:14
[Bava Batra 127b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/127b:14)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אָמַר ״בְּנִי הוּא״, וְחָזַר וְאָמַר ״עַבְדִּי הוּא״ – אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. ״עַבְדִּי הוּא״, וְחָזַר וְאָמַר ״בְּנִי הוּא״ – נֶאֱמָן, דִּמְשַׁמֵּשׁ לִי כְּעַבְדָּא קָאָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Yoḥanan says** that if one **says** about another: **He is my son, and then says: He is my slave,** his latter statement is **not deemed credible.** It cannot disqualify him from marrying a Jewish woman or exclude him from his inheritance. Conversely, if he first says: **He is my slave, and then says: He is my son,** his latter statement is **deemed credible, as** in his first statement he presumably **was saying: He serves me as a slave** does.


###### Bava Batra 127b:15
[Bava Batra 127b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/127b:15)

וְחִילּוּפֵיהּ אַבֵּית הַמֶּכֶס – הָיָה עוֹבֵר עַל בֵּית הַמֶּכֶס וְאָמַר ״בְּנִי הוּא״, וְחָזַר וְאָמַר ״עַבְדִּי הוּא״ – נֶאֱמָן. אָמַר ״עַבְדִּי הוּא״, וְחָזַר וְאָמַר ״בְּנִי הוּא״ – אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the opposite** *halakha* applies **to** one **at the tax house:** If one **is passing the customs house and says** about a certain person: **He is my son, and then** later **says: He is my slave,** his latter statement is **deemed credible,** as he presumably says that the other is his son only to evade paying a tax for possessing a slave. Conversely, if **he says** at the customs house: **He is my slave, and then** later **says: He is my son,** his latter statement is **not deemed credible,** as one would not unnecessarily render himself liable to pay a tax.


###### Bava Batra 127b:16
[Bava Batra 127b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/127b:16)

מֵיתִיבִי: הָיָה מְשַׁמְּשׁוֹ כְּבֵן, וּבָא וְאָמַר ״בְּנִי הוּא״, וְחָזַר וְאָמַר ״עַבְדִּי הוּא״ – אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. הָיָה מְשַׁמְּשׁוֹ כְּעֶבֶד, וּבָא וְאָמַר ״עַבְדִּי הוּא״, וְחָזַר וְאָמַר ״בְּנִי הוּא״ – אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from a *baraita*: If one **was serving** another person **like a son** serves his father, **and** the person being served **came and said: He is my son, and then said: He is my slave,** his latter statement is **not deemed credible.** Additionally, if one **was serving** another person **like a slave** serves his master, **and** the one being served **came and said: He is my slave, and then said: He is my son,** his latter statement is **not deemed credible.** This contradicts Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement that if he first says that he is his slave and then says that he is his son, his latter statement is deemed credible.


###### Bava Batra 127b:17
[Bava Batra 127b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/127b:17)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: הָתָם, דְּקָארוּ לֵיהּ: ״עַבְדָּא מְצַר מְאָה״. מַאי ״מְצַר מְאָה״? מְצַר עַבְדָּא מְאָה זוּזֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: There,** in Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement, it is a case where he is presumed to be a slave **because** everyone **calls him: A slave** on whose **border [*metzar*]** are **one hundred.** Since everyone is referring to him in this manner, the person he served cannot call into question his status as a slave by saying that he is his son. The Gemara asks: **What** does it mean that on his **border [*metzar*]** are **one hundred?** The Gemara answers: **One hundred dinars are adjacent to [*metzar*]** this **slave.** In other words, he is worth one hundred dinars.


###### Bava Batra 127b:18
[Bava Batra 127b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/127b:18)

שְׁלַח לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא לְרַב יוֹסֵף בַּר חָמָא, הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ: ״עַבְדִּי גָּנַבְתָּ״, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״לֹא גָּנַבְתִּי״. ״מָה טִיבוֹ אֶצְלְךָ?״ ״אַתָּה מְכַרְתּוֹ לִי;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Abba sent** several rulings from Eretz Yisrael **to Rav Yosef bar Ḥama,** including the following: In the case of **one who says to another: You stole my slave, and he says** in response: **I did not steal** him, and when the first inquires: If so, **what is the nature of his** presence **in your** possession, the latter responds: **You sold him to me,**