Commentary for Bava Batra 246:8

הכא במכירי כהונה עסקינן ודאשתחיט בחיי דאבוהון וקסבר מתנות שלא הורמו כמי שהורמו דמו

built houses or planted vineyards, the firstborn does not take [in them] a double portion.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the appreciation of the estate was due to human effort, it cannot be regarded as having formed part of the original estate. V. Tosef. Bek. VI. ');">²¹</span> How is one to understand [the statement about] the shoulder, and the [two] cheeks, and the maw? If these were already in the possession<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they came into the hand'. ');">²²</span> of their father, [it is] obvious [that the firstborn is to take a double portion]; and if they were not already in the possession of their father, [at the time of his death], this [is a case of] prospective [property]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of these priestly gifts is altogether different from that of the natural appreciation of an estate. In the latter case, the estate itself was in the possession of the deceased, and its natural appreciation may consequently be regarded as an integral part of the original estate. The priestly gifts, on the other hand, were never, directly or indirectly, in the possession of the deceased. ');">²³</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Batra 246:8. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.