Bava Batra 284

דהוא מיית ברישא ואין הבן יורש את אמו בקבר להנחיל לאחין מן האב

— Because [the embryo] dies first<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the mother. ');">¹</span> and no son in the grave<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. after his death. ');">²</span> may inherit from his mother to transmit [the inheritance] to his paternal brothers 'Do you mean to say that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An embryo. ');">³</span>

למימרא דהוא מיית ברישא והא הוה עובדא ופרכס תלתא פרכוסי אמר מר בר רב אשי מידי דהוה אזנב הלטאה שמפרכסת

dies first, surely there was a case when it made three convulsive movements?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the mother was dead. ');">⁴</span> — Mar. son of R. Ashi, replied: Those were only [reflex movements] like those of the tail of the lizard which moves convulsively [even after it has been cut of].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such movements are no signs of life. ');">⁵</span> Mar, the son of R. Joseph, said in the name of Raba: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah of Niddah cited, wherein a child one day old is mentioned, implying the exclusion of an embryo. ');">⁶</span>

מר בריה דרב יוסף משמיה דרבא אמר לומר שממעט בחלק בכורה ודוקא בן יום אחד אבל עובר לא מאי טעמא (דברים כא, טו) וילדו לו אמר רחמנא

teaches<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit.. 'to say'. ');">⁷</span> that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A child who is one day old. ');">⁸</span> causes a diminution in the portion of the birthright.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if there are, e.g.. two brothers exclusive of the child, the estate is divided not into three portions (two for the two ordinary portions of the two brothers and one for the birthright, but into four portions. Each brother, including the child, receives one such portion and the firstborn receives the additional fourth portion as his birthright. The firstborn thus receives, as the portion of his birthright, a quarter of the estate, and not, (as would have been the case if the child were excluded). a third. ');">⁹</span>

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>

בסורא מתנו הכי בפומבדיתא מתנו הכי אמר מר בריה דרב יוסף משמיה דרבא בכור שנולד לאחר מיתת אביו אינו נוטל פי שנים מאי טעמא יכיר אמר רחמנא והא ליתא דיכיר והלכתא ככל הני לישני דאמר מר בריה דרב יוסף משמיה דרבא

which is not [the case here].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The son having been born after his father's death. Thus, according to Mar the son of R. Joseph, it is possible to concede that an embryo may die after its mother and that consequently, as R. Shesheth maintained, it inherits her estate which it then transmits to its paternal brothers. ');">¹²</span> Thus<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The version just given. ');">¹³</span> it was taught at Sura. At Pumbeditha. [however]. it was taught as follows:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'thus'. ');">¹⁴</span>

אמר רבי יצחק אמר רבי יוחנן המזכה לעובר לא קנה ואם תאמר משנתינו הואיל ודעתו של אדם קרובה אצל בנו

Mar. the son of R. Joseph, said in the name of Raba: A firstborn son who was born after the death of his father<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., where his widow bore twins or where he left two widows and both bore sons one of whom was the firstborn, ');">¹⁵</span> does not receive a double portion. What is the reason? The All Merciful said, He shall acknowledge,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXI, 17. ');">¹⁶</span> and, surely. he is not [alive] to acknowledge [him]. And the law is in accordance with all those versions which Mar the son of R. Joseph quoted in the name of Raba.

אמר ליה שמואל לרב חנא בגדתאה פוק אייתי לי בי עשרה ואימר לך באפייהו המזכה לעובר קנה והלכתא המזכה לעובר לא קנה

R. Isaac said in the name of R. Johanan: If possession was given to an embryo [through the agency of a third party]. it does not acquire ownership. And if objection should be raised from<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and if you will say'. ');">¹⁷</span> our Mishnah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From which it might be inferred, as R. Nahman suggested supran that an embryo does acquire ownership. ');">¹⁸</span> [it may be replied that there it is different] because a person is favourably disposed towards his son.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence he wholeheartedly transfers ownership to the embryo. In the case of a stranger however, this principle is inapplicable. ');">¹⁹</span>

ההוא דאמר לדביתהו נכסי לבני דיהוו לי מיניך אתא בריה קשישא אמר ליה ההוא גברא מאי תיהוי עליה אמר ליה זיל קני כחד מברא הנך ודאי לא קנו דאכתי ליתנהו

Samuel said to R. Hana of Bagdad: 'Go. bring me a group of ten [people] and I will tell you in their presence<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To give the matter due publicity. ');">²⁰</span> [that] if possession Is given to an embryo [through the agency of a third party]. it does acquire ownership'. But the law is that if possession is given to an embryo [through the agency of a third party]. it does not acquire ownership. Once a certain man said to his wife, 'My estate [shall belong] to the children that I shall have from you'. His eldest son<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From his first wife. ');">²¹</span>

האי אית חולק לטליא במקום בניא או לית ליה חולק לטליא במקום בניא רבי אבין ורבי מיישא ורבי ירמיה דאמרי אית חולק לטליא במקום בניא רבי אבהו ורבי חנינא בר פפי ורבי יצחק נפחא דאמרי לית חולק לטליא במקום בניא

came [and] said to him, 'What shall become of me?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., of that man, i.e., himself. ');">²²</span> He replied to him, 'Go acquire possession as one of the [other] sons'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That were to be born from the second wife ');">²³</span> Those<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The future children who at the time of the assignment were not even in embryo. ( ');">²⁴</span>

אמר ליה רבי אבהו לרבי ירמיה הלכתא כוותן או הלכתא כותייכו אמר ליה פשיטא דהלכתא כוותן דקשישנא מינייכו ולאו הלכתא כוותייכו דדרדקי אתון אמר ליה מידי בקשישותא תליא מילתא בטעמא תליא מילתא וטעמא מאי זיל לגביה דרבי אבין דאסברתה ניהליה

[can] certainly acquire no ownership.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the estate, merely by virtue of the father's assignment. ');">²⁵</span> since they are not yet in existence; has [however]. this lad<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The eldest son. ');">²⁶</span> an [additional] share beside<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in place'. ');">²⁷</span> the [other] sons,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When, in due course they inherit the estate by the right of succession would he, in addition to what is due to him as one of the sons, receive also a share by virtue of the special assignment made to him by his father? ');">²⁸</span> or has the lad no [additional] share beside<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in place'. ');">²⁷</span> the [other] sons? — R. Abin and R. Measha and R. Jeremiah say: The lad receives an [additional] share beside the [other] sons. R. Abbahu and R. Hanina b. Papi and R, Isaac Nappaha say: The lad receives no [additional] share beside the [other] sons. R. Abbahu said to R. Jeremiah. 'Is the law in accordance with our view<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'us'. ');">²⁹</span> or in accordance with yours?' He replied to him, 'It is obvious that the law' is in accordance with our view because we are older than you. and [that] the law' [can] not be according to your view because you are [only] juniors.' The other retorted, 'Does the matter then depend on age? [Surely] the matter depends on reason!' 'And what is the reason?' [R. Jeremiah asked.] 'Go to R. Abin,' [replied R. Abbahu.] 'to whom I have explained the matter