Bava Batra 252:1

מר סבר לא עשה כלום בפלגא ומר סבר בכולהו

[One] master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Papi. ');">¹</span> holds the opinion [that Raba's meaning was that the sale] of a part<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'half'. That part which belonged to his brother. The sale of his own share, however, is valid since, according to R. Papi. the firstborn comes into the possession of his own share even before the distribution had taken place. ');">²</span> [only of the estate was] invalid, and the [other] Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Papa ');">³</span>

שלחו מתם בכור שמכר קודם חלוקה לא עשה כלום אלמא אין לו לבכור קודם חלוקה והלכתא יש לבכור קודם חלוקה

holds the opinion [that Raba's meaning was that] the entire [sale was invalid].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because, according to R. Papa, the firstborn does not come into the possession of his share heir the distribution had taken place. ');">⁴</span> [A message] was sent from Palestine:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from there'. ');">⁵</span> [If] a firstborn son had sold [his share] before the division [of the estate took place, that sale] is invalid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. note 3. ');">⁶</span>

מר זוטרא מדרישבא פלג בצנא דפלפלי בהדי אחין בשוה אתא לקמיה דרב אשי אמר ליה הואיל ויתרתה במקצת ויתרתה בכל הנכסים כולן:

This shows that the firstborn is not regarded as the [legal] possessor of his share<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he has not' ');">⁷</span> before distribution [had taken place]. And the law is that the firstborn is the possessor of his share<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he has'. ');">⁸</span> [even] before distribution [of the estate had taken place].

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> האומר איש פלוני בני בכור לא יטול פי שנים איש פלוני בני לא יירש עם אחיו לא אמר כלום שהתנה על מה שכתוב בתורה

Mar Zutra of Darishba divided a basket<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in a basket'. ');">⁹</span> of pepper with [his] brothers in equal [shares].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though he was the firstborn, he renounced his claim upon the double portion. ');">¹⁰</span> [When] he came before R. Ashi, [the latter] said to him: 'Since you have renounced [your rights in] a part [of the estate]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The pepper. ');">¹¹</span>

המחלק נכסיו על פיו ריבה לאחד ומיעט לאחד והשוה להן את הבכור דבריו קיימין ואם אמר משום ירושה לא אמר כלום כתב בין בתחלה בין באמצע בין בסוף משום מתנה דבריו קיימין:

you have [implicitly] renounced [them] in all of it'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in all the property'. ');">¹²</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. [IF] ANY ONE SAID,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prior to his death. ');">¹³</span> 'MY FIRSTBORN SON, SHALL NOT RECEIVE A DOUBLE PORTION,' [OR] 'X, MY SON, SHALL NOT BE HEIR WITH HIS BROTHERS', HIS INSTRUCTIONS ARE DISREGARDED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he said nothing'. ');">¹⁴</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> לימא מתניתין דלא כר' יהודה דאי ר' יהודה האמר בדבר של ממון תנאו קיים

BECAUSE HE MADE A STIPULATION [WHICH IS] CONTRARY TO WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE TORAH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One has no right to give instructions which are contrary to the law of the Torah which has entitled every son to a portion, and the firstborn to a double portion, in the father's estate. ');">¹⁵</span> IF ONE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A man on his death-bed. ');">¹⁶</span> DISTRIBUTED HIS PROPERTY VERBALLY, [AND] GAVE TO ONE [SON] MORE, AND TO [ANOTHER] ONE LESS, OR [IF] HE ASSIGNED TO THE FIRST BORN A SHARE EQUAL TO THAT OF HIS BROTHERS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he made the firstborn equal to them'. ');">¹⁷</span>

דתניא האומר לאשה הרי את מקודשת לי על מנת שאין ליך עלי שאר כסות ועונה הרי זו מקודשת ותנאו בטל דברי ר' מאיר ר' יהודה אומר בדבר של ממון תנאו קיים

HIS ARRANGEMENTS ARE VALID.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because a person is entitled to dispose of his property, as a gift, in any manner that appeals to him. ');">¹⁸</span> IF, [HOWEVER], HE SAID, AS AN INHERITANCE',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if he distributed the shares as portions of an inheritance and not as gifts. ');">¹⁹</span> HIS INSTRUCTIONS ARE DISREGARDED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 2 and 1. ');">²⁰</span>

אפי' תימא ר' יהודה התם ידעה וקא מחלה הכא לא קא מחיל

[IF] HE WROTE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Disposing of his property in a written will. ');">²¹</span> EITHER AT THE BEGINNING OR THE MIDDLE OR THE END, 'AS A GIFT',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though he used the expression of 'inheritance' also. ');">²²</span> HIS INSTRUCTIONS ARE VALID.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'his words stand'. So long as the expression. 'as a gift', was used, the other expression. 'as an inheritance'. that may have been used with it, does not affect the validity of the testator's instructions. ');">²³</span>

אמר רב יוסף אמר איש פלוני בני בכורי הוא נוטל פי שנים איש פלוני בכור הוא אינו נוטל פי שנים דלמא בוכרא דאמא קאמר

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. [Must] it be said [that] our Mishnah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which forbids any stipulation that is contrary to a law of the Torah. ');">²⁴</span> is not in accordance with R. Judah? For, if [it be suggested that it is in accordance with] R. Judah. surely he said, [it may be asked]. [that] in money matters one's stipulation is valid'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if it is contrary to a law of the Torah Since our Mishnah deals with money matters and yet it is stated that one's stipulation that is contrary to the Torah, is invalid, it obviously cannot agree with R. Judah's view. ');">²⁵</span> For it was taught: If a man said to a woman, 'Behold thou art consecrated unto me<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The formula of marriage used by the bridegroom is, 'Behold, thou art consecrated unto me by this ring according to the law of Moses and Israel'. ');">²⁶</span>

ההוא דאתא לקמיה דרבה בר בר חנה א"ל מוחזקני בזה שהוא בכור א"ל מנא ידעת דהוה קרי ליה אבוה בוכרא סכלא דלמא בוכרא דאמא הוא דכל בוכרא דאמא נמי בוכרא סכלא קארו ליה

on condition that thou shalt have no [claim] upon me [for] food, raiment and conjugal rights' she is consecrated<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Becomes his legal wife. ');">²⁷</span> but the stipulation is null;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it is contrary to the law of the Torah. Cf. Ex. XXI, 10. ');">²⁸</span> these are the words of R. Meir. R. Judah said: In respect of the money matters his stipulation is valid!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., her 'food and raiment'. Now since the law is always decided in accordance with the view of R. Judah, in opposition to the rival view' of R. Meir, is it likely that our Mishnah is contrary to the accepted law? ');">²⁹</span>

ההוא דאתא לקמיה דרבי חנינא אמר ליה מוחזקני בזה שהוא בכור אמר ליה מנא ידעת אמר ליה דכי הוו אתו לגבי אבוה אמר להו זילו לגבי שכחת ברי דבוכרא הוא ומסי רוקיה

[Our Mishnah] may be said [to be in agreement] even [with the view of] R. Judah; [only] there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the stipulation about the food and clothing of one's wife. ');">³⁰</span> she knew [his conditions] and renounced her privilege<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the acceptance of his proposal. Hence the validity of the stipulation. ');">³¹</span> [but] here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case in our Mishnah. ');">³²</span>

ודלמא בוכרא דאמא הוא גמירי בוכרא דאבא מסי רוקיה בוכרא דאמא לא מסי רוקיה

[the son] did not renounce [his privileges].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which the Torah had conferred upon him. Hence the law that the stipulation is null. ');">³³</span> R. Joseph said: [If] one said, 'X is my firstborn son', [the latter] is to receive a double portion.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His father's word is sufficient in this case to establish his right. ');">³⁴</span> [But if he said]. 'X is a firstborn' [the latter] is not to receive a double portion, for he may have meant,' the firstborn son of his mother'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such a firstborn has to be redeemed from the priest in the same way as the firstborn of a father, but is not entitled to a double portion. ');">³⁵</span>

אמר ר' אמי טומטום שנקרע ונמצא זכר אינו נוטל פי שנים דאמר קרא (דברים כא, טו) והיה הבן הבכור לשניאה עד שיהא בן משעת הויה

A certain [person once] came before Rabbah b. Bar Hana [and] said to him, 'I am certain that this [man] is a firstborn'. He said to him: 'Whence do you know [this]?' 'Because his father called him foolish<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The witness assumed that 'foolish firstborn' implied that he was 'firstborn to his father' and 'weak in intellect'. ');">³⁶</span> firstborn' 'He might have been the firstborn of his mother [only], because the firstborn of a mother is also called foolish firstborn.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Foolish', implying that he has the title 'firstborn' without the rights and privileges attached to it. ');">³⁷</span> A certain [person once] came before R. Hanina [and] said to him, 'I am certain that this [man] is firstborn'. He said to him, 'Whence do you know [this]?' — [The other] replied to him: 'Because when [people] came to his father,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Complaining of certain pains or eruptions on their bodies. ');">³⁸</span>

רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר אף אינו נידון כבן סורר ומורה דאמר קרא (דברים כא, יח) כי יהיה לאיש בן סורר ומורה עד שיהא בן משעת הויה

he used to say to them: Go to my son Shikhath, Who is firstborn and his spittle heals'. — Might he not have been the firstborn of his mother [only]? — There is a tradition that the spittle of the firstborn of a father is healing, but that of the firstborn of a mother is not healing. R. Ammi said: A <i>tumtum</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] one whose sexual organs are undeveloped or concealed. ');">³⁹</span> [firstborn] who, having been operated upon<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'who was torn'. ');">⁴⁰</span> was found to be a male, does not receive a double portion [as heir], for Scripture says. <i>And if the firstborn son be hers that was hated</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXI, 15. ');">⁴¹</span> [which implies that he cannot be regarded as firstborn] unless<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'until'. ');">⁴²</span> he was a <i>son</i> at the <i>beginning<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from the moment'. ');">⁴³</span></i> of [his] being.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] being', 'existence', comes from the same root as [H] 'and if&nbsp;… be', in the text cited. ');">⁴⁴</span> R. Nahman b. Isaac said: Neither is he tried as a 'stubborn and rebellious son';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Deut. XXI, 28-21. ');">⁴⁵</span> for Scripture says,<i> If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. v. 28. ');">⁴⁶</span> [which implies that] he must have been<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'until he shall be'. ');">⁴⁷</span> a <i>son</i> at the<i> beginning<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 3. ');">⁴⁸</span></i> of[his] being.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. I.e. n. 4. The Heb. for have in the text cited, is [H] of the same root as [H] ');">⁴⁹</span>