Bava Batra 246

(בראשית מג, כט) ואת בנימין אחיו בן אמו אמר מרגלית טובה היתה בידי ואתה מבקש לאבדה ממני הכי אמר ר' חמא בר חנינא זו יוכבד שהורתה בדרך ולידתה בין החומות שנאמר (במדבר כו, נט) אשר ילדה אותה ללוי במצרים לידתה במצרים ואין הורתה במצרים

With [eth] Benjamin, his brother, his mother's son?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XLIII, 29. ');">¹</span> — He said: I possessed a precious pearl<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Hama's exposition. ');">²</span> and you seek to deprive me of it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to make it public. R. Hiyya's remarks were intended to raise the interest of the students in what he was going to tell them. ');">³</span>

בעא מיניה ר' חלבו מר' שמואל בר נחמני כתיב (בראשית ל, כה) ויהי כאשר ילדה רחל את יוסף וגו' מאי שנא כי אתיליד יוסף אמר ליה ראה יעקב אבינו שאין זרעו של עשו נמסר אלא ביד זרעו של יוסף שנאמר (עובדיה א, יח) והיה בית יעקב אש ובית יוסף להבה ובית עשו לקש וגו'

Thus said<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supran 120a, Sotah, 12a. ');">⁴</span> R. Hama b. Hanina, 'It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The person whose name was omitted from the detailed enumeration. ');">⁵</span> was Jochebed who was conceived on the way<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Canaan to Egypt. ');">⁶</span>

איתיביה (שמואל א ל, יז) ויכם דוד מהנשף ועד הערב למחרתם אמר ליה דאקריך נביאי לא אקריך כתובי דכתיב (דברי הימים א יב, כא) בלכתו אל צקלג נפלו עליו ממנשה עדנה ויוזבד וידיעאל ומיכאל ויוזבד ואליהוא וצלתי ראשי האלפים אשר למנשה

and born between the walls [of Egypt], for it is said, Who was born to Levi in Egypt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXVI, 59. ');">⁷</span> [which implies that] her birth was in Egypt but her conception was not in Egypt'. R. Helbo enquired of R. Samuel b. Nahmani: It is written, And it came to pass, when Rachel had born Joseph etc.;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. XXX, 25. ');">⁸</span>

מתיב רב יוסף (דברי הימים א ד, מב) ומהם מן בני שמעון הלכו להר שעיר אנשים חמש מאות ופלטיה ונעריה ורפיה ועזיאל בני ישעי בראשם ויכו את שארית הפלטה לעמלק וישבו שם עד היום הזה אמר רבה בר שילא ישעי מבני מנשה אתי דכתיב (דברי הימים א ה, כד) ובני מנשה חפר וישעי

why<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why did Jacob say to Laban, 'send me away to my country' (ibid). ');">⁹</span> just when Joseph was horn? He replied to him: Jacob our father saw that Esau's seed would be delivered only into the hands of Joseph's seed for it is said, And the house of Jacob shall be a fire and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Obad. I, 18. ');">¹⁰</span> He pointed out to him the following objection: And David smote them from the twilight even unto the evening of the next day!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I Sam. XXX, 17. This shows that a descendant of Judah (David) defeated the descendants of Esau (Amalek, cf. Gen. XXXVI, 12). How, then, could it be said that Esau's seed would fall into the hands of Joseph's seed only? ');">¹¹</span>

תנו רבנן הבכור נוטל פי שנים בזרוע ובלחיים ובקיבה ובמוקדשין ובשבח ששבחו נכסים לאחר מיתת אביהן

— He replied to him: He who taught you the Prophets did not teach you the Writings,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Hagiographa. ');">¹²</span> for it is written, As he went to Zicklag, there fell to him of Manasseh, Adnah and Jozabad and Jediael and Michael and Jozabad and Elihu, and Zillethai, captains of thousands that were of Manasseh.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I Chron. XII, 20. The victory of David was accordingly due to the help he received from the men of Manasseh who descended from Joseph. ');">¹³</span> R. Joseph raised an objection; And some of them, even of the sons of Simeon, five hundred men, went to Mount Seir, having for their captains Palatiah and Neariah, and Raphaiah and Uzziel, the sons of Ishi. And they smote the remnant of the Amalekites that escaped, and dwelt there unto this day!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. IV, 42f. This proves that Esau's seed fell also into the hands of the descendants of Simeon. How, then, could it be said that only Joseph's descendants could overcome Esau's seed? ');">¹⁴</span>

כיצד הניח להן אביהן פרה מוחכרת ומושכרת ביד אחרים או שהיתה רועה באפר וילדה בכור נוטל פי שנים אבל בנו בתים ונטעו כרמים אין בכור נוטל פי שנים

— Rabbah b. Shila replied; Ishi descended from the sons of Manasseh, for it is written, And the sons of Manasseh were Hepher and Ishi.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This quotation does not occur in our Bible text. The nearest approach is I Chron. V, 24, 'And these were the heads of their father's houses, Epher and Ishi'. ');">¹⁵</span> Our Rabbis taught: The firstborn son [of a priest] takes a double portion in the shoulder, and the [two] cheeks, and the maw,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The priests' due from people who offer sacrifices. V., Deut. XVIII, 3. ');">¹⁶</span> in consecrated objects and in the [natural] appreciation of an estate that accrued after the death of the father.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the heirs. ');">¹⁷</span>

האי הזרוע והלחיים והקיבה היכי דמי אי דאתי לידי אבוהון פשיטא ואי דלא אתי לידי אבוהון ראוי הוא ואין הבכור נוטל בראוי כבמוחזק

How [is this to be understood]? — [If] their father had bequeathed to them a cow [that was] rented out to others [for half profit], or given on hire [at a fixed rate], or feeding in the meadow, and it gave birth to a firstling, he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The firstborn. ');">¹⁸</span> takes [in it] a double portion;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the appreciation was natural, it is regarded as having formed part in the original estate in their father's lifetime. ');">¹⁹</span> but if they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The heirs. ');">²⁰</span>

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>

מוקדשין לאו דידיה נינהו

and, [surely], a firstborn does not take [a double portion] in prospective [property] as [he does] in that which [was] in the [actual] possession [of his father at the time of his death]! — [The law], here, relates to the case where [the givers<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the priestly gifts mentioned. ');">²⁴</span> were] acquaintances of the priest,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], Makkire Kehunah. Lit., 'acquaintances of priesthood'. Friends of the deceased who were in the habit of giving him all their priestly gifts, which, consequently, become his as soon as the beast had been killed. [Klein S., regards the phrase as terminus technicus for the 'watches' ([H]) of priests in attendance at the Temple service for one week at a time. He connects it with [H] in Deut. XVIII, 8, which is thus understood by the Talmud, Suk. 46a. V., MGWJ. 77, 185ff.] ');">²⁵</span> and [the beast] was [ritually] killed in the lifetime of the father;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the heirs. ');">²⁶</span>

בקדשים קלים ואליבא דרבי יוסי הגלילי דאמר ממון בעלים הוא דתניא (ויקרא ה, כא) ומעלה מעל בה' לרבות קדשים קלים שהן ממון בעלים דברי רבי יוסי הגלילי

and [the Tanna] holds that the [priestly] gifts are regarded as [already] given,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'lifted' 'separated'. ');">²⁷</span> [even though] they have not [actually] been given.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, the gifts are regarded as having been in the actual possession of the deceased, and the firstborn is, therefore, entitled to a double portion. ');">²⁸</span> 'Consecrated things' [surely], are not his!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consecrated objects such, e.g., as sin, or guilt offerings, are devoted to the Lord, not to the priest; why' then, should the firstborn be entitled to a double portion in that which did not belong personally to his father? ');">²⁹</span>

הניח להן אביהן פרה מוחכרת ומושכרת ביד אחרים או שהיתה רועה באפר וילדה בכור נוטל בה פי שנים השתא מוחכרת ומושכרת דלאו ברשותא דמרה דידהו קיימא אמרת שקיל רועה באפר מיבעיא

— [The law here relates to] consecrated objects of a minor degree and [it is] in accordance with [the view of] R. Jose the Galilean who holds that they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Objects, such as live beasts consecrated as peace offerings. ');">³⁰</span> are the property of the owner.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having been, accordingly, the property of the father, the firstborn son is entitled to the double portion. ');">³¹</span> For it was taught: And commit a trespass against the Lord [and deal falsely with his neighbour etc.]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 21. ');">³²</span>

הא קא משמע לן דמוחכרת ומושכרת דומיא דרועה באפר מה רועה באפר שבחא דממילא קא אתי ולא קא חסרי בה מזונא

includes consecrated things of a minor degree which are the property of the owner<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since Scripture speaks of a trespass against the Lord and of dealing falsely with one's neighbour, it must refer to consecrated objects of a minor degree, such as live peace offerings, a share of which (the flesh and skin) belongs to the owner, and a share is either given to the priest or burnt on the altar. ');">³³</span> — these are the words of R. Jose the Galilean. 'If their father had bequeathed to them a cow that was rented out to others [for half profit], or given on hire [at a fixed rate], or feeding in the meadow, and it gave birth to a firstling, he takes [in it] a double portion.' Since it was said that he takes [a double portion in the case of a cow that was] rented out or given on hire, though, [in both cases,] it is not standing in the domain of its owner, is there any need [to mention the case when] it feeds in the meadow?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where it is entirely in the possession of the heirs. ');">³⁴</span> It is this that was [intended to be] taught: That one rented out or given on hire [is subject to] the same [law as] one that feeds in the meadow. As [in the case of the] one that feeds in the meadow, the appreciation [is such] as comes naturally, and they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The heirs. ');">³⁵</span> do not lose [the cost of its] food<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Feeding in the meadow is free. ');">³⁶</span>