Commentary for Bava Batra 284:4

דאמר מר בריה דרב יוסף משמיה דרבא בן שנולד לאחר מיתת אביו אינו ממעט בחלק בכורה מאי טעמא וילדו לו אמר רחמנא והא ליכא

[This] however [applies] only [to a child who is] one day old, but not to an embryo.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An embryo. though receiving a portion of the estate, does not reduce the portion of the birthright. In the case mentioned, e.g., in the previous note. the estate would first be divided into three portions (as if the embryo did not exist) and the firstborn would receive as his birthright, one of these, i.e., a third of the estate. The remaining two thirds would then he divided into three equal shares, each of the three brothers receiving one, i.e., two ninths of the estate. The full portion of the firstborn would accordingly amount to 1/3 + 2/9 = 3/5) five ninths of the estate, while where the child was one day old, the firstborn's full portion would amount to half the estate only. I.e., (5/9 - 1/2 = 1/18), one eighteenth less. ');">¹⁰</span> What is the reason? — The All Merciful said, And they have born to him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXI 15 This implies that, as regards the birthright, the children must have been actually born. An embryo cannot come under this category and is, therefore, regarded as non-existent in this respect. ');">¹¹</span> For [so] said Mar, the Son of R. Joseph. in the name of Raba: 'A son who was born after the death of his father does not cause a diminution In the portion of the birthright. What is the reason? The All Merciful said, And they shall have born to him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXI 15 This implies that, as regards the birthright, the children must have been actually born. An embryo cannot come under this category and is, therefore, regarded as non-existent in this respect. ');">¹¹</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Batra 284:4. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.