## Bava Batra Daf 142b

###### Bava Batra 142b:1
[Bava Batra 142b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/142b:1)

דְּהוּא מָיֵית בְּרֵישָׁא, וְאֵין הַבֵּן יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אִמּוֹ בַּקֶּבֶר לְהַנְחִיל לָאַחִין מִן הָאָב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The reason is **that** we presume that the fetus **died first,** before its mother died, **and the son does not inherit from his mother** while **in the grave,** in order **to bequeath** the inheritance **to his paternal brothers.** The *halakha* is that if a son dies, and afterward his mother dies, the deceased son does not inherit from his mother and subsequently bequeath the inheritance to his paternal brothers, who are not related to the mother. But in other cases, where it is not his mother’s estate, a fetus inherits property.


###### Bava Batra 142b:2
[Bava Batra 142b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/142b:2)

לְמֵימְרָא דְּהוּא מָיֵית בְּרֵישָׁא?! וְהָא הֲוָה עוֹבָדָא, וּפַרְכֵּס תְּלָתָא פִּרְכּוּסֵי! אָמַר מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי: מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַזְּנַב הַלְּטָאָה, שֶׁמְּפַרְכֶּסֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Is this to say that** it is certain that the fetus **died first? But there was an incident** where the mother died **and** the fetus **made three spasmodic motions** afterward. Apparently, a fetus can die after the mother. **Mar bar Rav Ashi said:** That incident was **just as it is with the tail of the lizard, which jerks** after being severed from the lizard, but it is just a spasmodic motion which does not indicate that it is still alive.


###### Bava Batra 142b:3
[Bava Batra 142b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/142b:3)

מָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא אָמַר: לוֹמַר שֶׁמְּמַעֵט בְּחֵלֶק בְּכוֹרָה. וְדַוְקָא בֶּן יוֹם אֶחָד, אֲבָל עוּבָּר – לָא. מַאי טַעְמָא? ״וְיָלְדוּ לוֹ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar, son of Rav Yosef, says in the name of Rava:** The mishna comes **to say that** a one-day-old child **reduces the portion of the firstborn.** The firstborn is entitled to a double portion of the inheritance, and this is calculated taking into account the portion due to his dead brother. **And** it is in this context that **specifically** the portion of **a one-day-old** child is taken into account, **but** the portion of **a fetus is not** taken into account, even though a fetus also inherits property. **What is the reason** for this? **The Merciful One states** concerning the portion of the firstborn: “If a man has two wives, the one beloved, and the other hated, **and they bore him children,** both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated” (Deuteronomy 21:15). The term “children” excludes a fetus.


###### Bava Batra 142b:4
[Bava Batra 142b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/142b:4)

דְּאָמַר מָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: בֵּן שֶׁנּוֹלַד לְאַחַר מִיתַת אָבִיו – אֵינוֹ מְמַעֵט בְּחֵלֶק בְּכוֹרָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? ״וְיָלְדוּ לוֹ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְהָא לֵיכָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is similar to another *halakha*, **as Mar, son of Rav Yosef, says in the name of Rava: A son who was born after his father’s death does not reduce the firstborn’s portion. What is the reason** for this? **The Merciful One states** in the Torah: **“And they bore him children,” and this** term “children” **does not** apply to a fetus.


###### Bava Batra 142b:5
[Bava Batra 142b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/142b:5)

בְּסוּרָא – מַתְנוּ הָכִי. בְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא – מַתְנוּ הָכִי: אָמַר מָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: בְּכוֹר שֶׁנּוֹלַד לְאַחַר מִיתַת אָבִיו – אֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם. מַאי טַעְמָא? ״יַכִּיר״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְהָא לֵיתָא דְּיַכִּיר. וְהִלְכְתָא כְּכׇל הָנֵי לִישָּׁנֵי דְּאָמַר מָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **In Sura they taught** Mar’s statement **that** way, but **in Pumbedita they taught** it **this** way: **Mar, son of Rav Yosef, says in the name of Rava: A firstborn who was born after his father’s death does not receive a double** portion. **What is the reason** for this? **The Merciful One states** in the Torah: “But **he shall acknowledge** the firstborn, the son of the hated, by giving him a double portion” (Deuteronomy 21:17), **and** in this case the father **is not** there **that** he can **acknowledge** him. The Gemara concludes: **And the *halakha* is in accordance with all these versions** of that **which Mar, son of Rav Yosef, says in the name of Rava.** Accordingly, a one-day-old child reduces the portion of the firstborn, a son born after his father’s death does not reduce the firstborn’s portion, and a firstborn born after his father’s death does not receive a double portion.


###### Bava Batra 142b:6
[Bava Batra 142b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/142b:6)

אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַמְזַכֶּה לְעוּבָּר – לֹא קָנָה. וְאִם תֹּאמַר: מִשְׁנָתֵינוּ! הוֹאִיל וְדַעְתּוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם קְרוֹבָה אֵצֶל בְּנוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Yitzḥak says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** With regard to **one who transfers ownership** of an item **to a fetus,** the fetus **does not acquire** the item. **And if you say** that the statement of **our mishna** (140b), with regard to one who gives a gift to his unborn child, indicates that an item can be transferred to a fetus, the circumstances there are unique. **Since the disposition of a person** is to be **inclined toward his son,** the Sages validated such a transfer, but one cannot transfer an item to the unborn child of another.


###### Bava Batra 142b:7
[Bava Batra 142b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/142b:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל לְרַב חָנָא בַּגְדָּתָאָה: פּוֹק אַיְיתִי לִי בֵּי עַשְׂרָה, וְאֵימַר לָךְ בְּאַפַּיְיהוּ: הַמְזַכֶּה לְעוּבָּר קָנָה. וְהִלְכְתָא: הַמְזַכֶּה לְעוּבָּר לֹא קָנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Shmuel said to Rav Ḥana of Baghdad: Go out** and **bring me an assembly of ten** men, **and I will say** a *halakha* **to you in their presence,** so that it will be well publicized. The *halakha* was: With regard to **one who transfers ownership** of an item **to a fetus,** the fetus **acquires** the item. The Gemara concludes: **And the *halakha*** is that with regard to **one who transfers ownership** of an item **to a fetus,** the fetus **does not acquire** the item.


###### Bava Batra 142b:8
[Bava Batra 142b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/142b:8)

הָהוּא דַּאֲמַר לִדְבֵיתְהוּ: ״נִכְסַי לִבְנֵי דְּיִהְווּ לִי מִינִּיךְ״. אֲתָא בְּרֵיהּ קַשִּׁישָׁא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״הַהוּא גַּבְרָא מַאי תֶּיהְוֵי עֲלֵיהּ?״ אָמַר לֵיהּ: ״זִיל קְנִי כְּחַד מִבְּרָא״. הָנָךְ – וַדַּאי לָא קָנוּ, דְּאַכַּתִּי לֵיתַנְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara relates: There was **a certain** man **who said to his wife,** before she conceived: **My property** is given **to the sons that I will have from you. His older son** from a previous marriage **came** and **said to him: That man,** i.e., me, **what will become of him,** i.e., will I receive nothing? **He said to** his son: **Go** and **acquire** a portion **like one of the sons** who will be born, i.e., you will receive a share as well. The Gemara comments: **Those** sons who were not yet born **certainly did not acquire** the property, and do not receive more than their share as heirs, **as they are not yet** in existence.


###### Bava Batra 142b:9
[Bava Batra 142b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/142b:9)

הַאי – אִית חוּלָק לְטַלְיָא בִּמְקוֹם בְּנַיָּא, אוֹ לֵית לֵיהּ חוּלָק לְטַלְיָא בִּמְקוֹם בְּנַיָּא? רַבִּי אָבִין וְרַבִּי מְיָישָׁא וְרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה דְּאָמְרִי: אִית חוּלָק לְטַלְיָא בִּמְקוֹם בְּנַיָּא. רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר פַּפִּי וְרַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא דְּאָמְרִי: לֵית חוּלָק לְטַלְיָא בִּמְקוֹם בְּנַיָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: With regard to **this** son, **does the young man [*letalya*]** receive an additional **share** of the inheritance in a case **where** there are other **sons** from the second wife, since his father gave him an additional share, **or does the young man not** receive an additional **share** of the inheritance **where** there are other **sons?** There are **Rabbi Avin, and Rabbi Meyasha, and Rabbi Yirmeya, who** all **say: The young man does** receive an additional **share** of the inheritance **where** there are other **sons.** And there are **Rabbi Abbahu, and Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappi, and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, who** all **say: The young man does not** receive an additional **share** of the inheritance **where** there are other **sons.**


###### Bava Batra 142b:10
[Bava Batra 142b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/142b:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ לְרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: הִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתַן, אוֹ הִלְכְתָא כְּוָתַיְיכוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: פְּשִׁיטָא דְּהִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתַן – דְּקַשִּׁישְׁנָא מִינַּיְיכוּ, וְלָאו הִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתַיְיכוּ – דְּדַרְדְּקֵי אַתּוּן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִידֵּי בְּקַשִּׁישׁוּתָא תַּלְיָא מִילְּתָא?! בְּטַעְמָא תַּלְיָא מִילְּתָא! וְטַעְמָא מַאי? זִיל לְגַבֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אָבִין – דְּאַסְבַּרְתַּהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abbahu said to Rabbi Yirmeya:** Is **the *halakha* in accordance with our** opinion, **or** is **the *halakha* in accordance with your** opinion? Rabbi Yirmeya **said to** Rabbi Abbahu: It is **obvious that the *halakha*** is **in accordance with our** opinion, **as we are older than you, and the *halakha*** is **not in accordance with your** opinion, **as you are youngsters [*dardekei*].** Rabbi Abbahu **said to** Rabbi Yirmeya in reply: **Does the matter depend upon age? The matter depends upon the reason** behind the ruling. Rabbi Yirmeya asked him: **And what is** your **reason?** Rabbi Abbahu replied: **Go to Rabbi Avin, as I explained** this *halakha* **to him,**